The real issue in criminal subject jurisdiction is whether the charges should be pursued by federal or state law. In the event that the charges affirm an infringement of federal Criminal Law, the respondent will be attempted in a federal court that is situated in the state in which the offense was perpetrated. In the event that the charges affirm an infringement of state law, the respondent will confront arraignment in a trial court that has jurisdiction over the territory in which the offense was conferred. On the off chance that a wrongdoing abuses both federal and state law, the respondent may be attempted twice: once in state court, and once in federal court.
Some activities are illegal under both federal and state laws. …show more content…
Attorney’s Office Middle District of Alabama, 2013). Robbery is a state crime for the most part, but certain types of robberies fall under federal jurisdiction. Robbing a bank is a part of federal jurisdiction, and it didn’t help the matter any that Ringer used a gun to commit the act. Any robbery or attempted robbery of a bank, credit union or savings and loan institution constitutes a federal crime. Accounts at all U.S. banks are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a corporation of the federal government, bringing bank robbery under federal jurisdiction and involving the FBI. Under the federal Bank Robbery Act of 1934, as amended, 18 U.S.C §§2113, 3231 (1999), banks, credit unions, and savings and loan associations that are (1) organized under federal law; (2) part of the federal system; or (3) federally insured are protected (U.S. Code 18 USC 2113 - Sec. 2113. Bank Robbery and Incidental Crimes) .
About 95 percent of all cases that has led to felony convictions never achieve a jury, yet rather are settled through plea bargains, in which a defendant consents to plead guilty in return for a lessened sentence. (The Plea).
In 1973, Patsy Kelly Jarrett, the twenty-three-year-old North Carolina resident headed to New York with a companion for a late spring long get-away. It was just when the police appeared at her entryway three years after the fact, Jarrett says, that she discovered that at some point amid their New
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The Supremacy Clause: Conflict between Federal and State Law as it relates to Medical Marijuana
A public policy is the body of principles that underpin the operation of legal systems in each state. In this paper I am going to talk about federal along with state policies. I will discuss each of the policies and how they are similar and how they are different. Federal and State policies are made to help keep our Country running smoothly. If there were no policies then keeping our Country safe would be a hard task. Policies are principles that are set to help make our Country operate on a daily bases. I like to think of it as rules that are set to keep our Country safe; because if there were no rules then everyone would be doing their own thing which could cause for a very disorganized situation.
Each state has their own specific unique laws established individually for their state. In conjunction with those laws that exist over the people in their specific state there are also federal laws that govern the states as well as the people who live in them. These laws that govern the people are known as state laws and federal laws. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. “It creates a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Due to federalism, both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems (Comparing
The federal government and state governments have had a long history of powers struggles. The struggle goes back and forth between who has the right to make decisions and if there is a problem who should fix it. Sometimes it is better for the federal government to fix issues and during other situations it is better for the state or local governments to fix other issues. In the PBS special of the United States Constitution, Peter Sagal travels around the states documenting the various roles and impact the government has on the country as a whole and on the individual states.
The difference between federal courts and State courts is that State courts are usually established by a state themselves and Federal courts are established under the U.S. Constitution to decide disputes involving the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.
More than 90 percent of criminal convictions come from negotiated pleas, also known as, plea bargaining. Plea bargains are used every day at both the federal and state court level. They certainly have their “proponents” as well as their “opponents”. A plea bargain basically is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. That agreement is usually in the form of a defendant pleading guilty to a “lesser” crime with a reduced sentence in return for the prosecuting authority not having to expend the time, energy, expense and manpower in seeking a conviction in a trial of a more serious charge. An evaluation of the evidence against the defendant is usually a significant factor by the prosecutor in determining whether or not a plea bargain should be offered. If the prosecutor’s case is strong, the chances of a plea bargain being offered to the defendant are lessened. While at the same time, if the prosecutor feels that his evidence is on the weaker side, the probability of a plea bargain being offered is enhanced.
Patsy Kelly Jarrett was a young woman back in 1973 who lived in North Carolina. She had a car and a job and many friends, she was just an average teenager who took a road trip with one of her guy friends to New York one break. During this trip they stay in New York where she relaxed, and her friend took a job and used her car to make money. Eventually the break was over, and they came back home to North Carolina and then about three weeks later she hears a knock on her door and it was the police. She was told there was a warrant out for her arrest for murder out of New York.
One example being that there are federal crimes such as counterfeiting, racketeering and tax crimes fall under jurisdiction of the federal courts, and state crimes such as homicide, aggravated assault and robbery which fall under the jurisdiction of state courts. The federal court does reign supreme over the state courts; they can review state convictions to determine whether or not the constitution was violated.
It is impossible to talk about American laws without talking about the source of those laws. Following the revolution, Americans were trying to instill a government that that was nothing like the monarchy they had freed themselves from. This led to the writing of the Constitution and the federalist paper, a group of documents written by early patriots, which were to increase support for the Constitution for ratification. During this time, the Articles of Confederation were use as a loose set of rules establishing a very weak central government that had no power over the states. This was done to prevent past mistakes with King George. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison (even though some scholars believe Madison was given too much credit) (Gerber
Pleas don’t come without drawbacks or dangers. Some fear that an innocent defendant may be pressured into a confession and plea out of fear of a more severe penalty if convicted. Another drawback is that some vicious criminals will get lenient treatment and get less than they deserve and be back out in a shorter time. “More than 90% of convictions come from negotiated pleas, which means that less than 10% of criminal cases result in trial.” This statistic starts to answer a question I had about our system. “What are the effects of plea bargaining in our courts and should there be more control over them?” The obvious effects are that fewer cases actually go to trial. With less cases
However, plea bargains may not be all that great towards the defendant. A defendant might choose to just plead guilty in order to not go through a lengthy trial process. The defendant may run the risk of pleading guilty to something that he or she may or may have not committed. If the defendant is innocent, they may ruin their record by pleading guilty to something that they did not do. Typically, the public might perceive plea bargains as a form of legal coercion towards the defendant. This may lead some to think that the plea bargain is just the criminal justice system's way of ruining the lives of ordinary citizens because the counselors are literally bypassing the chance for a defendant to defend themselves. If a defendant enters a plea bargain, they surrender their innocence. The courts benefit tremendously from plea bargains, but the defendant is the one who truly has to pay for everything. The defendant might receive a lighter sentence but they are the only receiving
When a defendant is faced with criminal charges, they only have one simple goal. The one simple goal is to decrease their possible penalty. About 95 percent of all felony convictions in the United States are the result of plea bargains (Schulhofer qtd. in Larson).
The criminal justice system holds trials on cases. Most cases are dealt with outside of court. If a case is significant enough and is approved, then it goes to the state court. Most cases do not pass the state court, but if someone objects to the state court’s decision, then the case may go to the federal court. Another way a case is able to be held at the federal court is if the case involves two different states and involves over $70,000. According to crash course, there are four different scenarios in which the federal courts have original jurisdiction (case goes directly to federal court without the interaction of state or local courts). In all of these scenarios the cases must be brought in an original district court. The first scenario is in cases where the law at issue is a federal law. The
Even though a little more of felony convictions are handled by juries, some attorneys perspectives encourage a trial by jury, arguments can be made in favor for jury trials that reinforce the risk for a negative outcome is low. Jury trial practices have evolved depending on the state, some states permit “jurors to take notes) (308) “Other practices, such as providing at least one written copy of instruction and providing guidance on conducting deliberations, are also common in state courts.”(308-309. To minimize the risk of bias interpretation of judgment upon the alleged crime, attorneys try to play toward the juror’s conscience. If they are fully aware of what their findings mean to the defendant and they do not consider all facts by the