362 CHAPTER 12|THE COURTS
Many, but not all, civil and criminal cases are heard before a jury that decides
the outcome in the case, which is called the verdict. Often cases get settled before
they go to trial (or even in the middle of the trial) in a process known as plea
bargaining. In a civil case, this would mean that the plaintiff and defendant
agree on a monetary settlement and admission of guilt (or not; in some cases the
defendant may agree to pay a fi ne or damages but not to admit guilt). In a crimi-
nal case, the defendant may agree to plead guilty in exchange for being charged
with a lesser crime or for receiving a shorter sentence than might be imposed in
a jury trial. Plea bargaining is an excellent example of how legal confl ict between
two parties can be resolved through a compromise that is satisfactory to both
sides.
One type of civil suit is the class-action lawsuit, a case brought by a group
of individuals on behalf of themselves and others in similar circumstances. The
target may be a corporation that produced hazardous or defective products, or
that engaged in illegal behavior that harmed a particular group. For example, in
1999, 1.5 million current and former female Walmart employees sued the retail-
ing giant for sex discrimination, claiming that the store has paid women less than
men for the same work and has promoted fewer women than men.^8 Class-action
suits are often fi led on behalf of shareholders of companies that have lost value
because of fraud committed by corporate leaders. Cases like these are a very
important mechanism for providing accountability and justice in our economic
system.COMMON LAW AND PRECEDENT
Forty-nine of the 50 states and the federal courts operate under a system of
common law, which means that legal decisions build from precedent estab-
lished in previous cases and apply commonly throughout the jurisdiction of the
court. The alternative, which is practiced only in Louisiana, is the civil law tra-
dition that is based on a detailed codification of the law that is applied to each
specific case.
The notion of precedent (or stare decisis—“let the decision stand”) deserves
special attention. Precedent is a previously decided case or set of decisions that
serves as a guide for future cases on the same topic. Lower courts are bound by
Supreme Court decisions when there is a clear precedent that is relevant for a given
case. In many cases, following precedent is not clear-cut because several prece-
dents may seem relevant. The lower courts have considerable discretion in sorting
out which precedents are the most important. The Supreme Court tries to follow
its own precedents, but in the past 50 years justices have been willing to deviate
from earlier decisions when they think that the precedent is fl awed. As Table 12.1
shows, precedent is not a rule the Court must follow but a norm that constrains its
behavior.STANDING
Another factor must be considered before a case is fi led: the person bringing the
case must have standing to sue in a civil case, which means that there is a legiti-
mate basis for bringing the case. This usually means that the individual has suf-
fered some direct and personal harm from the action addressed in the court case.
Standing is easy to establish for private parties—for example, if your neighbor
destroys your fence, you have been harmed. However, it gets more interesting whenplea bargain An agreement
between a plaintiff and defendant to
settle a case before it goes to trial or
the verdict is decided. In a civil case
this usually involves an admission of
guilt and an agreement on mon-
etary damages; in a criminal case it
often involves an admission of guilt
in return for a reduced charge or
sentence.
class-action lawsuit A case
brought by a group of individuals
on behalf of themselves and others
in the general public who are in
similar circumstances.
common law Law based on the
precedent of previous court rulings
rather than on legislation. It is used
in all federal courts and forty-nine
of the fi fty state courts.
precedent A legal norm estab-
lished in court cases that is then
applied to future cases dealing with
the same legal questions.
O. J. SIMPSON DONS A PAIR OF GLOVES
during testimony in his double-
murder trial in Los Angeles in
June 1995. The jury was not
convinced of his guilt “beyond
all reasonable doubt” and thus
acquitted Simpson in this criminal
trial. However, a subsequent civil
trial found that a “preponderance
of evidence” was against him.