Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - Term Paper Example

?Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) is located at John Adams Courthouse, one Pemberton Square in Boston. It is the oldest appellate court today in the western hemisphere, originally established as Supreme Court of Judicature in 1692. The mission statement of the court is to “promote the rule of law and foster public trust by leading an independent judiciary that assures every person equal access to the fair, timely and impartial resolution of disputes in courts managed with efficiency and professionalism.” 1 It is the uppermost appellate court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, hearing limited number of appeals. This report is a culmination of a visit to the court on 1st April 2013, and it captures the workings of the courts and an analysis on its strength and weaknesses. The court is composed of 7 judges, the chief justice2 and six associate justices, all of whom are appointees of the governor, and with Executive Council’s consent. Once appointed, the judges hold office until they retire at the age of seventy, resign or die in office. The court hears appeals from lower court on all manner of cases, be they criminal or civil, and it sits from September to may, while single justice sits a day for each week throughout the year to hear matters that touch on cases that are already on trial such or appeal such as bar discipline proceedings, petition for admission to the bar, and a variety of other statutory proceedings. The court, in addition to the appellate jurisdiction, also exercises control over other subordinate courts and exercises superintendence over the bar. It does this through making or approving rules that regulate the operations of all the courts. This is in addition to the oversight roles that it plays in accordance with powers vested to it by the various statutes over several bodies that are affiliated with judiciary such as board of bar overseers, the board of bar examiners, the commission of judicial conduct and the Massachusetts Legal Assistance corporations. To add, it offers advisory opinion on legal matters, upon request by the governor and legislature. On this day, there was a sitting of a full SJC bench at John Adams Courthouse, courtroom one. The bench sat in full, to hear the appeals, composed of an uneven number of judges, seven. There were two criminal cases that were listed, SJC-11164 Commonwealth vs Leslie Bertini, and SJC-11163 Commonwealth vs Eugene Bertini . The defendants had been indicted for an armed robbery, armed assault with intent to rob, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon and larceny of over $250 . The trial court had granted the commonwealth orders to compel the accused to produce a buccal swab, allowing the commonwealth to employ reasonable force to ensure compliance with the said order. Subsequently, the defendants sought review of this order from a single judge. Moreover, Eugene Bertini filed a petition arguing that the commonwealth had not discharged the burden to show that the evidence being sought was relevant to the matter in question and that use of force to extract his DNA sample while he had not been convicted, violated his search and seizure rights under the fourth amendment and article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Leslie Bertini also filed an application for leave to appeal under mass. R.Crim.p.15 (a)(2). She also argued that the commonwealth had failed to show that the evidence sought would go towards proving her guilt, and additionally that allowing the Commonwealth to obtain the evidence by force, violates her rights to due process and not to self incriminate. The petitions were denied by the single justice, prompting the appeal before the full bench. The appeal also raised matter of constitutional law. The appellants argued that the order was violating their constitutional rights to privacy and to be free from unlawful search and seizure. Consequently, the matter was listed for full briefing and oral arguments, touching on the merits of the trial court’s order, how a defendant may seek relief from an interlocutory order issued by the trial court. To add, the parties were required to address whether Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 provides an adequate means for the defendant to seek relief from the trial court’s order and if so the defendant who proceeds under rule 15 may appeal from a single justice denial of a request for leave to appeal. The appellant were each represented by counsels, with both the defendants appearing in person. The appeals were consolidated and heard together, since they were based on the same set of facts and arising from the same event. The appellants were heard first, and then the commonwealth, and finally the appellants were given the right of reply, which is a key right under the criminal law and procedure. The counsel for both the appellants and respondents primary summarized their briefs, supporting each allegation with case laws, and based their arguments on the points that were directed by the judges, in an order that was issued on 26/6/2012. SJC has a strong case management process and procedures that is sometimes too rigorous, that balances the need for a speedy trial with that of the parties to adequately prepare their cases. To add, the SJC issues an order that clearly delimits issues that the parties should limit themselves to, during the trial, and thus avoids instances where the parties would waste time addressing matters that are not in contention or matters that are not relevant to the case before the court. Moreover, a party can easily know the status of the case by checking the online records and they don’t have to physically check the same in court. It has also heavily employed technology for instance, in online broadcasting of its sittings. The legal system is strengthened by clear rules about how the parties should conduct themselves during the appeal, and how the appeals are brought before the SJC. It ensures that only weighty matters reach the SJC, as those that raise issues that are not substantial are sieved out by the strict procedures. Nevertheless, it was apparent that the Supreme Judicial court for Massachusetts is slow in dispensing justice. The appeal before this court was first filed on 22/3/2012, more than a year before the matter was finally set for oral arguments. To add, the present date was set on 26/6/2012, meaning that the court is inefficient, delaying justice for both the victims and the accused. Moreover, the strict procedures and bureaucracy may also sieve out cases that may not appear to raise substantial points, and therefore deny the accused the rights to be heard. SJC had an elaborate system to assist students and other first time visitors and also to facilitate access to the courts by the accused. It is accommodating to students and offers a horde of free educational opportunities to both the educators and students. It has areas that are specifically reserved for educational exhibits and meeting areas, and also encourages group tours upon request. In conclusion therefore, Supreme Judicial Court for Massachusetts has an elaborate legal framework and rich jurisprudence in criminal law. It exhibits efficiency and employs technology to enhance case management. Read More