Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/13

 Reform of the Appeal System in Lower Co'urts choking the higher court, and causing the prosecuting attorneys to take almost any measures to get rid of them. Many of the cases are continued, or disposed

.

3

but additional and often prohibitive ‘ex pense in trying the whole case again on appeal.

The most obvious remedy for the de

of by the entry of a nolle prosequi or the

fects in the appeal system would be to

imposition of the minimum penalty. The success of one lot of appeals results in still more appeals at the next term, and causes an increasing congestion of the higher court, until at last the prosecuting attorneys do not pretend to deal seri ously with appeal cases. The authority of the lower courts becomes the subject of scorn, and their inﬂuence for order in

provide for jury trials in the lower courts, and to abolish appeals. But jury trials are always slow trials, and the result would probably be that the lower

the community is ruined.

The spec

tacle of a solemn trial, ending in a con viction and sentence, turned into a

mockery not because of any error in the proceedings, but merely because a party arbitrarily chooses not to abide by the

courts would become congested, in civil cases at least, as badly as the higher courts. In criminal cases the prospect of a speedy and conclusive trial by jury in the lower court, without the possi

bility of appeal, might lead to pleas of guilty in many cases that are now dragged out on appeal. In large cities, where many sessions of the lower court are held at one time, a provision for juries might hasten the disposition of

result, is what brings the lower courts

business; in smaller courts juries would

and their authority into contempt, and

probably be impracticable. In any case, juries in lower courts would involve a great increase in expense, and, in Massa chusetts at least, the time is not ripe

breeds a contempt for law in general. In civil cases the appeal system works similar evil. Both parties may be, and often are, as willing to submit their case to the lower court as to any other

for them.

permits the losing party, after judg

It seems clear, however, that relief in civil cases could be had by abolishing appeals and requiring a party not will ing to abide by the result of a trial with out jury in the lower court to remove the case to a higher court before trial, giving a bond for costs as a guaranty of good faith. Plaintiffs, desiring speedy

ment, to appeal the whole case, both

and

law and fact, wiping out the judgment

change.

of the lower court.

lay at any price, might remove their cases. A very few parties might think

tribunal. If they were compelled to elect beforehand between a trial before the lower court and a trial before some higher court, they would often select the lower court. But the present law

in Massachusetts and in other states

Naturally he avails

himself of this right, in all cases where

there is any real controversy, and in many cases where there is not. The higher court on the civil side is choked with appeals, and the time spent by every onein the lower court is wasted.

The burden of the appeal system is felt especially by the poor, who need speedy and inexpensive justice, but ﬁnd that a victory in the lower court means nothing

ﬁnal

trials,

would

welcome

the

Some defendants, seeking de

a jury trial presented some advantages worth the trouble of removal; though in most cases brought in lower courts a

jury trial is of no great value to either party. But the great majority of parties if they had to act before trial in order to get the case before 'a higher court, would be satisﬁed to let the case remain in the lower court for ﬁnal disposition.