josher89 wrote:This might be digressing somewhat, but when does, or can, a judge make a decision that will affect case law? Does it have to go to the USSC for case law to be set? Or, can a judge make a ruling and have that ruling be the new precedent? Something I've always wondered and maybe Ms. Steele would be able to give some insight into this. If this is better for another thread or chat board, I'm open to asking it there.
This can get complicated, but, first divide courts between federal and state courts.
State trial courts have to follow the U.S. Supreme Court (on federal const. issues), their state intermediate appellate court (if any), and their state supreme court. Decisions of other trial judges may be persuasive, but are not binding on them. Cases from federal appellate courts, other state courts, federal district courts, likewise may be persuasive, particularly the federal appellate court for that circuit and the federal district courts for that state, but are not binding.
State intermediate appellate courts have to follow the U.S. Supreme Court (on federal const. issues), their state supreme court, and try to be consistent with decisions they have made in the past (precedent/rule of stare decisis). Trial court decisions are not binding on them. They will look at federal and out of state stuff, and tend to favor their federal circuit court and sometimes the local federal trial court.
State supreme courts have to follow the U.S. Supreme Court (on federal const. issues). They try to be consistent with their earlier decisions. They are not bound by the intermediate appellate court, but often will try to be consistent with it unless they think it is wrong. They will look at federal and out of state stuff, and tend to favor their federal circuit court and sometimes the local federal trial court. The State supreme court has the final word on interpretation of state statutes, evidence rules, procedural rules, and the state constitution -- so long as the interpretation doesn't raise a federal constitutional issue.
It is possible to appeal a federal constitutional issue to the U.S. Supreme Court, but odds of review are very low.
In the federal system, same concepts -- the federal district courts are bound by their circuit's appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court and are often persuaded by each other. They will often look to the state courts when they have to interpret state statutes. The Circuit Courts of Appeals are bound by the U.S. Supreme Court and try to stay consistent with their own decisions. They are often persuaded by other federal appellate courts and sometimes state appellate courts.
The U.S. Supreme Court, as a practical matter, does what a majority of justices agree to. It tries to stay consistent with its earlier cases and does look at what other courts and sometimes other countries do.
Add to this that judges don't like to be overruled, so they tend towards a conservative interpretation of earlier decisions. It is also somewhat easier to persuade them to do something that some other court has done first and nothing bad happened. So it is easier, if there is no Connecticut case directly on an issue, for me to say in that, say, Massachusetts has interpreted this statute in this way for 15 years and there doesn't seem to be any sign of a problem, then to say, here's this whole new way of interpreting this statute that looks like a good idea but no one has ever tried it before.
This is one of the problems with forensic challenges. There is a huge body of cases saying that X, Y, or Z technique is admissible -- some of which involved substantive challenges, many of which may not have. It is easy for a judge to follow the vast body of cases rather than venture into a new area and put limits on a discipline. You can hear the frustration in Judge Gertner's opinion in U.S. v. Green, 405 F. Supp. 2d 104, 109 (D. Mass. 2005) on restricting firearms ID testimony.
"I reluctantly come to the above conclusion because of my confidence that any other decision will be rejected by appellate courts, in light of precedents across the country, regardless of the findings I have made. While I recognize that the Daubert-Kumho standard does not require the illusory perfection of a television show (CSI, this wasn't),[5] when liberty hangs in the balance — and, in the case of the defendants facing the death penalty, life itself — the standards should be higher than were met in this case, and than have been imposed across the country. The more courts admit this type of toolmark evidence without requiring documentation, proficiency testing, or evidence of reliability, the more sloppy practices will endure; we should require more"
