Can you explain the Federal vs State Justice system in US?

Post Reply New Topic

I understand that if there is flight across State lines, this become a Federal issue. However I remember being told that this doesn't necessarily mean it will be tried in a Federal court. Is this the case?

Regardless of State or Federal Jurisdiction how do they decide which state the trial presides? I guess it is simpler if crimes only happened in one state (other then flight).

You have State specific crime, so there can be multiple state trial and/or federal trials. How is it unraveled?

I guess there is some negotiation, extraditions, etc.

Most criminal offenses are in violation of state law (including most cases of murder, arson, robbery, kidnapping, and other crimes), so they would be tried in state court and would not fall under the auspices of the federal court system (or even the President, as the President can only commute or pardon federal offenses, and then only if it's not a case of impeachment). The U.S. Constitution has a provision for extradition (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2):

If a criminal violates only one state's law, then that person would be tried by that state's court system. Nevertheless, dangerous criminals fleeing across state lines may be picked up by federal marshals and then transported back to the state where the offense was committed.

There still federal court and prisons, what does qualify?

Would flight across intonational borders make no differnce?

You are saying that there are State crimes and Federal crimes, but I gather this is not totally mutually exclusive.

In light of what you have said. I the the UK-US Extradition treating should bare in mind which states are requesting extradition, in some cases we may grant/deny based on the level of justice available, shared values and the history of cooperation. Then we shoudl have a separate view for Federal only crimes.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 01 Nov 2014, 4:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Appeals from state courts where there is a "substantive federal question" (the death penalty qualifies as this) and federal offenses (like drug trafficking, generally crimes committed across state lines, crimes committed against federal employees in the course of their duties, etc.).

The vast majority of criminals, however, are held at the state level. The same is true for the death penalty; since 1976, only 3 federal prisoners have been executed (and all 3 had to be executed with the assistance of state authorities, as the federal government does not commonly carry out death sentences), while at the state level for state offenses, more than 1000 prisoners have been executed in that same space of time (mostly by Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia).

I know that the E.U. does not permit extradition unless there is a guarantee that the death penalty will not be used. At the federal level, it's simple: the federal government simply says they will not pursue the death penalty. For state offenses, however, state officials have to also agree not to use the death penalty for extradition from the E.U. to proceed (i.e. the federal government cannot make that decision for them; it's up to the state whether they would agree to such extradition terms).

And, yes, they are not mutually exclusive. For example, controlled substances laws are enforced at both the state and federal levels and so are things like bank robberies. (Because of the separate sovereigns doctrine (i.e. the doctrine that the federal government and each of the states are sovereigns in their own right), it is NOT considered double jeopardy to be acquitted in state court but to then be tried in federal court for the same offense. Otherwise, the Constitutional provision against double jeopardy applies.)

Actually this is the same as the UK.

However it don't apply if the British subject is already in the US and there is no extradition.

EU doesn't control extradition to the US yet. Thankfully, this is down to individual states.

However there is such a thing as European Arrest Warrant.

It can't be used just for questioning though, there is a bar that has to be met.

Double jeopardy in the UK, is if there new new compelling evidence that has come to light, the would have been available at he time (such as DNA), they could convince the CPS (prosecution service), to have new trial.

It is rare, you cannot recycle the old evidence.

In the U.S., with the exception of the separate sovereigns doctrine, the law against double jeopardy is absolute. Once that jury comes back "not guilty" and there is no mistrial, then the person may not be charged again for the same offense, no matter what new evidence comes out afterward (even if they confess right after the "not guilty" verdict is handed down!).

This used to be the case. But since 2003 Criminal Justice Act, implement 2005 in the case of murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes, etc, total new evidence such as DNA can be heard. First the Director of Public Prosecution must agree, and the Court of Appeal must quash the acquittal, to go ahead. If the evidence in not compelling enough to quash the acquittal, then it won't succeed and they are not on trial.

In other words if the basis for acquittal is no long valid, it is unsafe, then you can have a new trial.

This law was controversial at the time but I agree with it. I think the test is a viable one. Something totally new the completely pull the rug from under the acquittal. I ti not simply stuff that wasn't submitted, it is is totally new evidence, found since, which is not circumstantial.

I think it reflect the modern world. This type of evidence was not really likely, when the ideal of double jeopardy, was drafted.

Changing this in the United States would be quite a challenge. It was the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that barred double jeopardy, but like the rest of the bill of rights applied only to the federal government. The 14th amendment, however, incorporated many of the rights, including the right against double jeopardy, down to the states, meaning they apply to the states now.

Amending the U.S. Constitution would be the only way to remove absolute double jeopardy, but that is quite a challenge, because to propose an amendment either both Houses of Congress must pass it by a 2/3 vote or 2/3 of the states have to submit a petition to Congress to call a Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution which would then be called by Congress; then to ratify it (to make it actually take effect), either 3/4 of the state legislatures or 3/4 of the state ratifying conventions would have to pass it--which method to be used to ratify it is decided by Congress, either when it proposes the amendment itself or when it calls the Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution.

That is a shame it is sensible law. It is not a case of retrying someone until you get a conviction, it about evidence that completely challenges the basis for acquittal in the first place, so in other words the acquittal doesn't exist, is voided.

I wonder if there is a constitutional way round.

For the wealthy, the judicial system is irrelevant, for the rest of us, our every word and action could cost us our freedom, or our life. Everything, for the unrich, is subjective.

This is why legal aid is important.

Title 18 of the United States Code contains most of the Federal criminal statutes. The Federal trial courts (called the US District Courts) have jurisdiction to try persons accused of violating Federal law. They also are the court of first resort for habeas corpus petitions, which are used to ttack state convictions after a convicted person exhausts their state level appeals.

Appeals from the Federal District Court are heard by the Court of Appeals of the various circuits. This is generally the court of last resort, as the Supreme Court of the US only hears roughly 100 cases a term. There is a very limited right of direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Most cases get there after 4 justices agree that there's a substantial issue that should be decided, and vote to grant a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court also hears cases that were brought, and decided, in the various state systems when a defendant claims a violation of his Feeral constitutional rights. Interestingly, the only situation where the Supreme Court is required to take a case is where the highest state appellate court declares an Act of Congress unconstitutional.

The Federal courts also have civil jurisdiction. Sometimes it's conferred by various statutes, and in other cases it results from what's called "diversity of citizenship" between the parties. There is a mininum dollar amount threshold that has to be met for diversity jurisdiction to result.