If the suspect is arrested in flight in a 3rd state, is the suspect returned to the state of the first crime? If the 1st crime was murder, and the 2nd was vehicular homicide, would this make a difference?
2006-09-16 06:28:16 · 11 answers · asked by virginiabenson 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The answer is...both. What would happen is that the different State attorneys would confer and cooperate regarding which state would get the defendant first. Afterward, the second State would get its opportunity. Happens all the time, actually. There is no need to rush....the bad guy is in custody. Normally the decision would be made based upon which State was charging the more serious offenses, the quality of the evidence for each State's case, and whether or not one State may receive an tactical advantage for allowing the other State to prosecute first, thus exposing potential defenses and weaknesses...
2006-09-16 07:36:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
More than likely the Feds will take the case. Since the cases in state 1 and state 2 are both murder cases. Now if it was vehicular manslaughter or vehicular assault it would be reverted to each individual state, and whichever state got the request the fastest would get first crack at him.
2006-09-16 07:15:26 · answer #2 · answered by Eagle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Each state has jurisdiction over the crimes committed in that state.
The prosecutors of the two cases will often get together and decide which case is stronger. But it's equally likely the person will be tried for both crimes, with one sentence running after the other is done.
As far as extradition, usually it will be to the first state that requests it, based upon when an indictment (or formal charges) are filed.
2006-09-16 06:30:16 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
You actually have three crimes, a fight, the vechile homicide, and the murder.
Each state would try you for thier crime. so you would have three trails, Normally the more serious crime is tried first, but it does not have to be, you would merely be held with a warrant hold from each of the other states; So if the state with the fight went ahead and tried you , after you were convicted you would go to one of the other states, and then after that trial you would go to one of the other states.
Nromally you would serve you time in the state where you got the longest sentence ( but your attorney could try and let you serve part of your time in one of the other states)
2006-09-16 06:37:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The two states where the crime was committed would request extraditon of the criminal. Preference would be given on the basis of the seriousness of the crime and on which state would have thwe best case of securing a conviction. If the prosecution failed aor a enternce was completed the seconsd state could then request extradition.
2006-09-16 09:49:42 · answer #5 · answered by malcy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both states get to take a crack at filing charges. It will all be negotiated by the State's Attorneys Office during the extradition hearing(s).
2006-09-16 06:41:24 · answer #6 · answered by troythom 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they could belong interior an same argument as a fashion of addressing a element that the different side might want to be making. you spot this style of difficulty each and every of the time. Take, for instance, yet another warm-button difficulty. someone who theory that the authorities might want to enable torture might want to elevate the difficulty of experimental testing on animals. medical testing might want to be painful or perhaps deadly for animals, yet maximum human beings imagine this is all correct so long because this is saved to the minimum and serves the more effective sturdy. So an arguer might want to assert that on the grounds that we usually settle for animal testing, we'd want to consistently hence enable torture lower than an same criteria. diverse topics, yet suitable because they are similar in a unmarried ingredient. The death penalty's middle questions are even if a authorities must have the capacity to execute its personal voters, what degree guilt is demonstrable, even if the entire difficulty is useful, and some others. someone might want to be for or hostile to it for any of those causes, and this is authentic that maximum fairly of direction have not something to do with abortion in any respect. Conversely a number of the middle questions about abortion (at what element does someone develop into someone, for instance) have really a lot not something to do with the death penalty. yet there is a few overlap... fairly contained in the first element suggested. someone who asserts that abortion is incorrect because killing some different person is outright incorrect probable might want to be referred to as to interest in the experience that they don't stick with that concept in different respects which comprise warfare and criminal justice.
2016-11-27 02:31:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
This wouldn't be an issue if a good ol' boy from the sticks found him first. The dirtbag would never be seen again.
2006-09-16 06:32:32 · answer #8 · answered by north79004487 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Likely such a case would wind up in Federal court since interstate flight was involved.
2006-09-16 06:30:37 · answer #9 · answered by John G 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
strongest case also who made the arrest frist may want to get frist hands on conviction
2006-09-16 06:50:30 · answer #10 · answered by aldo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋