Understanding The Court System

Understanding The Court System
Name:
Institution:
Introduction
The U.S. Court System is a complex system that includes both federal and state-level courts. The federal system includes the judicial branch of the government. This system is designed to help society interpret the U.S. Constitution and provide guidelines for society. Court cases may concern many different topics and have an unlimited number of outcomes. The differences between federal and state courts are defined mainly by jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to the kinds of cases a court is authorized to hear (Wallace, 2003). State courts have a wider jurisdiction and are mostly involved in deciding cases of individual citizens such as robberies, broken contracts, family disputes and traffic violations. State courts are however not allowed to hear lawsuits involving certain specific federal laws, cases that that pertains constitutionality of a law, disputes between states or bankruptcy cases which are heard in special courts.
The structure of the federal courts are different in comparison to the state courts. Cases in state courts are first heard in trial courts, where trials are held and testimony is taken. State trial courts are categorized into general jurisdiction and limited jurisdiction. General jurisdictions are jurisdiction where claims lawyers may be required while limited jurisdiction are lower than general jurisdictions dealing with smaller cases that may not require a lawyer
(Schmalleger, 2009). General jurisdiction sometimes hear cases of appeal from a limited jurisdiction. after the trial courts, comes the appellate court that deals with laws issues being disputed in a particular case to ensure law is followed. The state court comes after the appellate courts which is the highest state court whose decision are final unless U.S. Supreme Court revokes the decision. This paper reviews a criminal court case heard in the state of Texas (Schmalleger, 2009).
The State of Texas vs Camen Todd Willingham
A year after Mr. Willingham’s was executed in 2004 with a lethal injection, Texas established a commission to review all cases with mistaken forensic scientific testimony. An investigative report and further evidence in Willingham vs State case deconstructs each aspect of the state’s case against Willingham.
Seminal Facts
The State of Texas vs Camen Todd Willingham, 897 S.W.2d 351(Tex.Cr.App. 1995). (Direct Appeal).
On October 29, 1992, Cameron Todd Willingham was sentenced to death for allegedly setting a fire on December 23, 1991 that killed his three young daughters. Willingham, who was asleep in the house survived the fire but it killed his three girls and destroyed the Corsicana, Texas, home which he shared with his wife and the three daughters. When the fire started, Cameron’s wife was not around but was at the Salvation Army buying Christmas presents for the girls (Innocent Project, 2010).
The 1992 state of Texas vs Cameron Todd Willingham case was heard in the state court namely 13th District court located in Navarro, Texas (Wallace, 2003). In the trial, prosecutors claimed that Cameron intentionally set the fire that killed his own children. However, Willingham said that he was asleep inside the house when the fire started and maintained his innocence throughout the trial. His death conviction was based on two grounds. The first was the testimony of the forensic experts who said that the fire was intentionally set based on their investigation and the second was by a jailhouse informant called Johnny Webb, who testified that Willingham confessed to him that he killed his daughters in 1991 (Innocent Project, 2010).
Main Laws Violated In the Case
By executing Mr. Cameron Todd Willingham several laws have been violated in this case. The first, is the parole law under article 37.07, code of criminal procedure as applied by 4218 was not considered by the court. This law states that the minimum requirement of a life sentence being 35years. This was a request by Willinghams' defense to the jury to consider their request but was denied (Innocent Project, 2010).
The principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt was violated by the charge. The definition of reasonable doubt used in this case was, ‘that doubt based upon reason and common sense, after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. The defense counsel termed reasonable doubt as the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his own affairs.’ Proof beyond doubt is the proof of such a convincing character that would make the juries be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation. The evidence presented to the jury fell short of that definition (Schmalleger, 2009).
Finally but not least, the law that states “Do you find taking into consideration all the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s character, background and personal culpab...