If it were not clear which state a crime was committed in for whatever reason; is it possible to be tried federally for the crime, or would one state or another eventually have to take control of the trial under state law?
2007-03-16 02:20:53 · 7 answers · asked by Wuzzy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The above is all correct, but the simple rule is that there must be an effect on interstate commerce (no matter how minimal) for the federal government to charge a crime. Sometimes that means a crime committed in two or more states, other times, as with computer crimes, you could just send information through several states. Courts have taken an increasingly liberal view of the interstate requirement, thus the tremendous growth of federal prosecutions.
2007-03-16 02:56:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because you don't clearly state what kind of crime, it's not easy to answer your question.
Generally speaking there are federal "statutes" and state laws.
Not all violations of the laws in a state violate federal statutes and not all federal statutes are laws within a specific state.
An example of a federal crime that mirrors a state law would be kidnapping. The federal law "kicks in" when the offender takes his victim across a state line.
Robbery is a criminal act in both state and federal law. To rob a convenience store is a state issue whereas robbing a bank is a federal violation.
You won't see the federal government pursue a convenience store robbery as they don't have a law or jurisdiction. Likewise, the federal government will pursue any bank robbery in federal court.
Drug cases on a major level can be pursued either by the state or federal court systems.
As you can see, the system can get very complicated based upon each individual circumstance.
If you have a more specific crime or situation in mind...I'd be more than happy to help again!
Best wishes.
2007-03-16 02:36:59 · answer #2 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1
2016-06-03 21:43:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anissa 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is federal criminal law, but like other areas of the law, the Federal Government can only act (i.e. Congress can only make a law) when it has been given power by the Constitution. Therefore, the "generic" crimes cannot be charged by the federal government because they generally have no jurisdiction (like, say, rape, assault, battery, most instances of murder). Federal crimes are usually -- Drug related (Title 21 of the U.S. Code), possession of firearms in interstate commerce, child porn, immigration related, financial crimes, bank robbieries, interstate fraud, and a few other speciality crimes (usually found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but are really scattered throughout the code).
If this crime happened in interstate commerce, it may be possible for the federal government to charge it -- especially if it's a crime that the feds are interested in (guns, drugs, fraud, child crimes). Otherwise the federal government may not have jurisdiction and one state or another will have to take it up.
2007-03-16 02:31:19 · answer #4 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure, there are offenses that are purely federal; offenses that are federal because the offender crossed state lines; offenses that occurred on Indian land or military bases. In fact, even DUI's are tried in fed'l court if they occurred on a base.
2007-03-16 02:30:43 · answer #5 · answered by David M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is. One is military court which is on the federal level. The other is when a criminal exhausts all other avenues of appeal then he could go to the US Supreme Court to have his case heard. However the Court doesn't like interfering with state with state affairs, unless the perpatrators constitutional rights have been violated.
2007-03-16 02:29:21 · answer #6 · answered by idak13 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
try this .. .. http://www.rovlaw.com/Federal_Criminal_Law_FAQ.htm
2007-03-16 02:25:47 · answer #7 · answered by Rumisha R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋