American Courts Midterm

Susannah Krug
American Courts Midterm

Question 1:
Our court system has many aspects of itself. Sometimes it appears to champion the values of the everyday person. Someday it appears to go along with the bureaucracy it has set up for itself. No model can accurately describe every aspect of every court system in America. However, after reading Packer’s article on the two types of criminal justice system, I believe that our system more accurately reflects a due process model. Throughout this essay, we can examine the aspects that illustrate this leaning.

One aspect of our court system is that the attorney representing the defendant can request that the court recognize that there is not enough evidence to convict you and the case can be thrown out. This is clearly not a Crime Control Model value because it is an obstacle that the state (i.e. prosecutors) must constantly overcome. We set up other obstacles for the state, such as appeals courts to review the decision of lower courts to make sure a human error has not occurred, or we require the police and the prosecution to follow certain rules respecting our privacy in order to obtain evidence of our wrongdoings (Katz v. United States, Kyllo v. United States). We believe that it is an important job of society to repress crime but not at the cost of all of us living in a police state. Many prosecutors also use grand juries as fact-finding tools because we as a society feel that what people say in court is more sacred and possibly less coerced than when that same witness or suspect says something to the police. All of these illustrate values that are in tune with the Due Process model. Even the fact that we say there is something wrong with our system when so many cases are being pled out exemplifies our reliance and trust in the trial system.

Kyllo v. United States also demonstrates our concept of legal guilt and how it is separate from actual guilt. The lawyers in this case were not claiming that the defendant was not actually growing marijuana in his house. What they were claiming was that the police had no right to know that he was and therefore he was not legally guilty of the crime but he was obviously factually guilty. Everyone knew this and this point was not a point of contention in the trial. This concept of legal guilt and our acceptance of when a factually guilty man goes free because he is legally innocent goes along with our view that the job of the court system "is at least as much to protect the factually innocent as it is to convict the factually guilty." (Packer, pg 165)
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." All of the Sixth Amendment sets up roadblocks for the state to convict defendants but the part assigning indigent defendants counsel implies our belief that every person should have equal representation in court. "There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial gets depends on how much money a man has" (Packer, pg 168). Equality being a key portion of the Due Process model, this also illustrates our commitment to this model.
In conclusion, our belief in and practice of the principles of legal guilt, equality and the many obstacles that we place in front of the state in order to convict a suspect all come together to me in an overwhelming amount of evidence that our system leans towards the Due Process model. Obviously not all of our system conforms to this model because these models are meant to be polarized opposites, but on the whole, the evidence shows our preference for protecting the innocent over convicting all the guilty.