And, Article III ensures both federalism and separation of powers by providing a mechanism for the Supreme Court to put forward guidelines for the lower courts. It is pointed out that “the Constitution clearly does limit in important ways congressional power to shift ultimate judicial power from federal to state courts” (Amar 271). Additionally, there are mechanisms such as “the case or controversy requirement, also called the “justiciability” doctrine, includes more specialised notions of ripeness, mooteness, and standing to sue, and prohibits consideration of constitutional issues except as a necessary incident to the resolution of a concrete “case” or “controversy” (Brilmayer 297).
Also, judicial precedent is one of the constitutional provisions for ensuring coherence in the praxis of criminal justice in the United States. The doctrine of judicial precedent in America is closely linked to other constitutional provisions such as the hierarchy of courts, separation of powers, judicial supremacy and the ideology of judicial adjudication. The interpretative nature of judica precedent is based on the fact that “judicial outcomes are fundamentally indeterminate” (Shapiro and Sweet 122).
However, judicial precedent functions in all direction as all courts have to refer at each other decisions on criminal justice of similar type irrespective of the court hierarchy. It means that judicial precedents, in practice, “help judicial law-making -an intrinsically decentralized mode of governance- achieve a semblance of centralization and systematic coherence” (Shapiro and Sweet 121). American federalism is deep and substantial as it allows an inherently heterogeneous legal system wherein state laws exist in competition with what is legal in the federal realm and other states.
American criminal justice system too is highly influenced by the