Calendaring in federal, state, and local courts refers to the listing of cases and hearing to be held at a specific day, week, month and year. Calendars are revised often to avoid a collision because of the high number of pending cases which makes scheduling difficult. Dockets, on the other hand, are judicial records of the proceedings and filings in a given court case. It shows names of the people or parties involved in the case, the case number and the proceedings, the presiding judge assigned to that case, information to whether the case is pending or resolved, the documents submitted to the court and when the hearings will be held (David C. Steelman, 2012).
These two processes are effective to some extent in promoting efficiency by creating order in court. Without the two of them, judges cannot manage to attend to the many cases pending due to collision in venues, crush over more than a case at the same time. However, more time is taken because a case may be scheduled after so long due to many pending cases that may have been allocated close dates in the past.
The federal system operates under an individual calendar and deals with criminal cases and one judge handles a case from the beginning to the end. They have a specific person calendaring the cases and therefore they have control over the cases. They handle fewer cases and therefore in this case calendaring would be done on a short period of time and continuance would be given but also for a short period of time but it is given once when appropriate (SCHWEIGERT, 2012). On the other hand, the State system handles many cases and calendaring is very difficult. There are several judges handling a case and issuing a continuance would affect the scheduling significantly and unless the reason is justifiable to the court a continuance wouldn’t be issued. In this case, there are no justifiable reasons for a continuance because the witnesses are themselves (Bureau of International Information Programs, 2004).
The key role in Federal judicial systems involves the jurisdiction of cases involving violation of the US constitution, for example, laws or treaties of the United States, US ministers and ambassadors, state-to-state disputes, admiralty law, bankruptcy and also habeas corpus. State judicial system, on the other hand, handles cases involving violation of federal law such as criminal cases within the state, and other cases relating to contracts, tort, family issues and others of that nature (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2019). Their role aids in creating an efficient and effective judicial system because all sectors of the constitution are well addressed because every system addresses specific concerns of the State (Find Law, 2019).
There are several factors that determine the venue of a case for example where the crime happened and where the suspects were found. A venue refers to the state where the suspect or the offender lives or where the accident happened. The venue for a federal case is heard in the District Court of the US in this scenario the US district court in Washington DC, and if the case will be handled by the state system the venue will be the nearest court close to the bank (American Bar Association, 2019). The impact of venue to this scenario, therefore, will depend on the laws violated depending on the status of the bank in insurance. Since the money was under FBI protection, the case will be heard at Washington DC at the district court which is more convenient for the proceedings.
Giving a four months continuance would affect the efficiency of the court because the judge handling the case is said to have blocked the trials for the next 10 months. The four months would delay the judicial system significantly. Since the case will be handled by the federal court, chances of getting continuance are minimal because the evidence available from one of them and no witnesses are required because they are witnesses of themselves.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts . (2019). Comparing Federal & State Courts. Retrieved from Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts : https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts
American Bar Association. (2019, september 9). How Courts Work. Retrieved from American Bar Association: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/jurisdiction/
Bureau of International Information Programs. (2004). U.S.LEGAL SYSTEM. Bureau of International Information Programs, 79.
David C. Steelman, E. F. (2012). CALENDARING AND CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE ANCHORAGE DISTRICT COUR. National Center for State Courts, 26-28.
Find Law. (2019). Federal vs. State Courts – Key Differences. Retrieved from Find Law: https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/federal-vs-state-courts-key-differences.html
SCHWEIGERT, M. B. (2012, march 25). Federal courts run on individual calendar — would it work here? Retrieved from Lancaster Online: https://lancasteronline.com/news/federal-courts-run-on-individual-calendar—-would/article_d99a04fb-0c61-5694-8fd8-4de07b4ac5cd.html