2007-03-13 17:34:31 · 8 answers · asked by Prostock 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As other posters already pointed out - one cannot be tried in federal and state court for the same crime - that is double jeopardy.
The Feds tend to be exclusive with sentencing. If a State wishes to try a defendant for a different crime, any sentence will be served consecutive to the Federal prison term. So, if someone receives a 20 YR sentence in Fed. court and a 10 YR sentence in State court, then that person is looking at 30 years total behind bars.
2007-03-13 18:00:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You CANNOT be convicted of the same crime by both the Federal Government and the State, it's double jeapordy (being tried twice for the same crime). If you have different cases in either court, then usually the harsher term is served first, then the lesser term. For example, if you're convicted of mail fraud (felony) and murder (usually dealt with by the state), the state will probably take custody of you. However, if you get out on parole, the Feds MAY be able to take you into custody to serve your term with them.
2007-03-13 17:47:40 · answer #2 · answered by Wildernessguy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends on what court the case was tried in. If it we federal court, then in would be federal prison, and for state court state prison. The feds can be involved with an arrest for something tried in state court, and then the perp would go to state prison. Does that make sense, I'm tired.
2007-03-13 17:39:12 · answer #3 · answered by zebj25 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would have to be separate convictions. You would be convicted of federal crimes in federal district court, and convicted of state crimes in state court.
Whichever conviction occured first would determine where you served your time first. It would then be up to the second judge whether your sentence for the other conviction would start to run immediately (concurrent) or when you got out of the first prison (consecutively).
2007-03-13 17:40:19 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Any persons in the U. S. illegally, inspite of ethnicity, must be deported. Illegally stepping into any US state, is illegally stepping into the country. Any unlawful who commits added crime ought to get added punishment, above the punishment for illegally stepping into the U. S.. Illegals who commit added crimes and illegals that don't, have ALL violated the regulation and are all unlawful. in addition to, illegals ought to in no way get a similar privileges that are afforded to criminal electorate. criminal electorate are in touch in the whole gadget. Illegals although, choose to "%. and decide" what areas of the gadget they like, take great element approximately those regulations and not persist with different regulations. "The perfect courtroom's ruling in Plyler v. Doe stated that unlawful immigrants are "in the jurisdiction" of the states wherein they stay." "Use of the word "interior of its jurisdiction" hence would not detract from, yet particularly confirms, the be attentive to-how that the protection of the Fourteenth modification extends to every person, citizen or stranger, who's undertaking to the regulations of a State, and reaches into each nook of a State's territory. That a individual's preliminary get admission to right into a State, or into u . s . a . of america, become unlawful, and that he would for that reason be expelled, can not negate the easy actuality of his presence in the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he's undertaking to the whole variety of duties imposed via the State's civil and criminal regulations. And till he leaves the jurisdiction -- the two voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the form and regulations of u . s . a . of america -- he's entitled to the equivalent protection of the regulations that a State would elect to envision." thank you.
2016-11-25 02:13:06 · answer #5 · answered by zukowski 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no "and". You are either tried by the federal court, or you are tried by the state court. One or the other.
You might be liable for prosecution by both courts... in which case, I believe the officials involved have the option of deciding which court is going to take precedence in prosecution.
2007-03-13 17:40:27 · answer #6 · answered by wendy c 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federal will always supersede state, county, city and local, and then once the feds are done, they will turn you over to the state,,???
2007-03-13 17:38:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
im not ,,,,and i wont........
good luck
2007-03-13 17:39:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋