What is difference between Federal and State Courts...

Federal Courts are limited to issues involving Federal Laws passed by the US Congress under the Constitution... 
Also cases where State Courts violated Federal Laws or the US Constitution.

State Courts deal with the old style Common Law. 

State Courts are courts that deal with recognizable crimes like Murder, Robbery, Assault, and other Crimes that you might read about in Mystery Novels.

State Courts are also charged with hearing Civil Cases arising between individuals in their state...involving Contracts, Torts, which are cases about injury or damage to persons or property...

State Courts also handle  Suits concerning Real and Personal Property.... 

Crimes in Federal Court usually involve "Federal Questions" or "Crossing State Lines"... so they are very limited in scope

Federal Crimes have Odd  Names that you probably won't find in old Mystery Stories... 

Therefore, Federal Crimes are NOT the place average street criminals end up...except in very rare cases... 

For Example Stealing from the Mail, Assaulting a mail delivery person... or violating Federal Liquor or Drug Laws...passed under authority of the US Commerce Clause

The Interstate Commerce Clause has been used to greatly expand Federal Crimes into areas that in the old days would have been handled in the State Common Law Courts...

For example Civil Rights under the US Constitution...are Federal issues...not necessarily State Issues.

Federal Courts have jurisdiction over cases where parties are from different states and the value of the case exceeds a certain amount... 

Federal Courts also have jurisdiction over "Navigable Waters"...which can be a small Creek at times... Navigable often being liberally defined

State Courts have Concurrent Jurisdiction over Federal Law where the case does not qualify for a Federal Court filing...which usually requires parties from Different States and a Dollar amount in excess of a set amount...or a serious "Federal Law Question"...

So State Courts are Common Law Courts...for old style Criminal and Civil Law

And Federal Courts are specialized courts to handle only issues that Congress has Constitutional Authority to regulate...Either expressly under the Constitution or Bill of Rights... Or from the decades long expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause...

What does "Common Law" Mean...?

The Common Law was the Law of Old England... It became the basis for the Law in America

Common Law is sometimes contrasted with the Civil Law which was the basis for the Laws in Europe...

Under Common Law the courts would hear cases and decide them...and that Ruling would be used in future cases to determine the outcomes...

The idea was if a court ruled one way in the past...future courts should follow that ruling... 

This is sometimes called Stare Decisis ...  Or "Let the Ruling Stand"...

Eventually, a large body of decided cases developed which were published as "Court Reports" for various jurisdictions... 

Lawyers and Judges would consult these "old rulings" to decide how the current case before them would be decided... This was called "Case Law"...

Of course sometimes there would be conflicting rulings...

These would be resolved at the Appeals Court level.  And to this day the US Supreme Court often decides cases where one court ruled one way and another court another way...

But Common Law is not the only way Law is made... There is also the Legislature ...

Congress or the State Legislature can OVERRULE Common Law Precedents by passing a STATUTE...  

A Statute is a Law passed by the legislative body that may over rule Common Law...or it could "Codify" these old case law rulings...as Statutes

Legislation is often said to be like a Bull Dozer...going through a Wild Flower Garden...which is the old Common Law...

So Hundreds of Years of Common Law decisions can be overturned by one legislative act...!

Of course, every case is different...so lawyers and judges STILL "look back" at Common Law Precedents to "interpret" legislative statutes...to determine "Intent" of the Legislature...

The Common Law is not dead~ But it is seriously limited as more and more legislation goes on the Books...

Both Common Law case law and Legislation are subject to review for Constitutionality...This is the job of the higher courts with the US Supreme Court being the Court of Last Resort...

In Europe the Civil Law is basically ALL legislative...

Huge "Codes" are passed by the King or Ruling Bodies...  And these have to force of Law until they are revised by another Code of Laws...

So think of Common Law as an Old Wild Flower Garden...with the Legislature having the power to Tear Up that Garden by Legislation...

But the old Common Law is still foundational in our Legal Thinking...Even Today...

What does it mean to "Lead the Witness"

Leading the witness is a form of question where the answer is implied. 

The witness merely says Yes or No...So in effect the Attorney is testifying NOT the witness...

You can not say:  Isn't it true that you were at X at 8pm?

Better to say: Where were you at 8pm...?

The best way NOT to lead the witness is use questions starting with Who, What, When, Where, Why or How... These words let the witness testify in his own words...

Now...you can NOT  lead your own witness...But amazingly you CAN lead the other attorney's witness on cross-examination. 

These are called Hostile Witnesses...   It is perfectly OK to lead the other attorney's witness on Cross Examination. 

This is why you hear leading questions in court...  Its not that the attorney is being more aggressive...Rather that attorney is cross examining someone else's witness...

Its important that your witnesses realize that you can't drag testimony out of them. Many witnesses expect that you will lead them and they become very confused on the witness stand when you don't...

So its important to tell witnesses that they have to "carry the ball" and you can't drag testimony out of them. 

Of course, then,  some witnesses will over do it and rush into a long narrative story...

They should be warned against this too.  Tell them to let you say : Then what happen?  ~ Occasionally to break up a long narrative. 
 
Long narratives are sometimes objected to by the court or other attorney. 

Sometimes you will see leading questions being allowed where obvious facts are being put in evidence and the other attorney doesn't bother objecting... 

If the other attorney does not object you can lead a witness until they object...

Divorce & Reconciliation ...

If a women hires an Attorney to file a Divorce case...And she is crying as papers are prepared?  

The couple will probably reconcile before Divorce is completed...

Divorce is only completed when BOTH parties are COLD about continuing the relationship. 

Divorces tend to run in the family...So if parents where divorced likely child will end up getting a divorce... 

Oddly the age at which the divorce is filed tends to be same between generations... Of course this is a generalization...But for what its worth...

Husband usually ends up paying more than he expected (unless wife is a total loser)...So Men have to be realistic about Outcome which may be financially problematic.

Wife gets the furniture and furnishings...And husband gets his Toys in the garage... 

Judges tend to be more generous with the party having custody of children...  There is a trend toward "joint custody" which makes parties feel that they are not the bad guy in the eyes of kids...

A working wife can cut down a husband's alimony and child support considerably.

Jury Selection: Myths and Lore

1.  The longer a jury stays out...the more likely they will find Defendant NOT GUILTY... 

2.   A smiling laughing jury coming into Court is a NOT Guilty Jury... A serious grim faced Jury is a Guilty Jury.

3.   Always pick jurors who "look like you"...and get rid of jurors who look like the other attorney..it makes a difference...

 4.   If the jurors start to fidget in their seats you are boring them...wrap up quickly

5.   Once the case is started Attorneys usually are unaware of the Jury...There are too many other things to think about.

6.   Watch jurors expressions to other sides testimony are they nodding or looking angry...IF they are crying...! You're Doomed...

7.   Pick jurors who look like your client...and not like the other party...this is so important. Could the juror be your friend or your clients friend...or would they be hostile to you.

8.   Jurors who are professionals may dominate others~Who is listening and who is falling asleep? Watch for body language to tailor points for specific jurors

9.   Its almost impossible to get rid of a juror "for cause" you'll need to use your challenges to get rid of them and there is no assurance the next juror won't be even worse... Do this in matter of fact way...so as not to insult other jurors...

10. Always give jury a "peg to hang their hat on" for desired result...if you don't believe in your case...neither will they....

FINALLY No One can predict what a jury will do...but they will likely use a very basic rudimentary Common Sense about who is right and who is wrong...

Why Should Someone "Stand Mute" in Criminal Case

Every Criminal Case starts with an Information or Indictment...These are the charging documents filed with the Court...

The Arraignment is often the first appearance of the Defendant in Court where he enters a "Plea" to the charging documents.

Defendant can either plead Guilty, Not Guilty or Stand Mute.  At that point the basis of the case is set...The Game is Afoot...

By Standing Mute...Defendant says NOTHING about the Prosecutors case or the charging documents...  

And THAT preserves any technical defenses found in the charging documents.  Often there are technicalities left out or wrongly stated in the Information or Indictment...

By pleading Not Guilty the Defendant may waive his right to object to those technical errors later

So Standing Mute Preserves the Defendant's right to Object to any mistakes later found in charging documents...

Many Attorneys advise preserving all possible defenses ...even if technical...which can at times be turned to an advantage for the client...

Why no Jury Trials in Divorce Cases...?

Back in the days of the Tudors in England there were two kinds of courts...

Law Courts and Chancery Courts... Law Courts were primarily concerned with Affairs of the Crown and the King's/Queen's "Peace"...  So Law Courts dealt with Crimes against the Crown and issues of Real Estate and Property Rights...

But the "forms of action" in these Law courts were very limited,  and had to be strictly plead or the case would be dismissed...

As a result there were often "Wrongs without a Remedy"...  This offended the conscience of the King But not the Strict Legal Requirements of his Law Courts...

So...

These Non~Legal matters would be handled in "Equity" 

They were placed within the jurisdiction of the Older Church Courts... 

The Church had jurisdiction over Church matters ...including Marriage, Minors and Trusts...

The Chancery or Church Court was headed by A Chancellor... 

This Chancellor would review these special cases where "Equity" was needed for a fair result and make recommendations to the King for obtaining justice...

Law Courts always had the right to a Jury of Peers via the Magna Charta...

But Church Courts never had a right to Trial by Jury...  "In Equity" there was no right to a Jury~since these cases were strictly matters of conscience and  fairness~And Not matters of Law...

Divorce was a marriage issue and Marriage was always under the Church Jurisdiction...

Hence: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO A JURY IN A DIVORCE CASE...

Bankruptcy Clients are Always Very Disorganized

One thing that characterizes a Bankruptcy Client is a certain level of disorganization...  Often confusion sets in...Then Denial. 

 Finally, they just quit opening the mail...

They often present at the Law Office with a jumble of papers. Unopened Envelopes ...Some from Courts or Lawyers...

Things pile up. 

Then Finally... a Wage Garnishment or Property Attachment sends them to a Lawyer to stop the pain...

Generally Bankrupts make good money...without it they could not get the credit that sent them into Bankruptcy...

Of course every case is different. But there are similarities between them...

Bankruptcy is a very clean remedy. And it does "magically" wipe out almost all debts.  Bankrupts should never agree to pay a debt during or after Bankruptcy to avoid re-establishing the claim.

Bankruptcy is one legal service where clients really do get their money's worth from the Attorney...

A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy is available to persons with lower levels of income for their state. This level varies from state to state... Many Chapter 13 repayment plans for higher earners go bad eventually and can be converted to Chapter 7's later...

Everything is Digital Now...

In the old days lawyers had offices full of books. State Court Reports. Form Manuals. Digests of the Law...with periodic pocket parts for updating...

Everything was Hard Copy...  Today its all on-line and digital.

An Entire Law Library from the 1980's could fit on a thumb drive...!

Updating is Real Time...Not by periodic pocket parts.

Computers have replaced the Word Processor which replaced the IBM Selectric Typewriter.

Papers are Emailed to clients and courts by PDF format. It would be possible to do an entire case without having anything printed out in the office or at the court...

Its all different now... Yet the actual day to day practice of law has not changed much...

And perhaps that is what needs to change...?

Stay Tuned...

Welcome To Coffee Shop Lawyers...

Is there A New Way to Deliver Legal Services in the Digital Age...

Stay Tuned... 

Nothing Herein is Legal Advice...Just Random Thoughts, Notions, Opinions and Ideas...