Exactly what determines wether someone who commits a crime is tried in a state court or before a federal court? I realize someone may be tried in front of both but where’s the dividing line.
The dividing line is whether he is charges with a state or federal crime.
The Constitution defines what the Federal government has jurisdiction over, and Congress is allowed to make laws in those areas. (If there is disagreement on whether a particular law is Constitutional, it is often a question of “does the Constitution say the Federal government is allowed to make a law in this area?”)
So, for example, plain old murder is a state crime. The Constitution does not give the Feds the power to make laws about murder.
However, if you murder a federal employee or military person, a congressman or President or Federal Judge, commit a murder on federal property, and so on, then you may be charged with a federal crime.
Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce and travel. So transporting a minor accross state lines for purposes of prostitution is a federal crime. But being a plain ol’ pimp and sticking to your hometown is a state crime.
Sometimes federal prosecutors will get involved if a state is unable or unwilling to convict an obvious criminal. There have been a few cases of racist juries acquitting white people who have murdered black people, despite good evidence. The crime of murder could not be tried under federal jurisdiction, but they could prosecute the guy for “violating the civil rights” of the victim, which is a federal crime.
The dividing line is whether he is charged with a state or federal crime.
The Constitution defines what the Federal government has jurisdiction over, and Congress is allowed to make laws in those areas. (If there is disagreement on whether a particular law is Constitutional, it is often a question of “does the Constitution say the Federal government is allowed to make a law in this area?”)
So, for example, plain old murder is a state crime. The Constitution does not give the Feds the power to make laws about murder.
However, if you murder a federal employee or military person, a congressman or President or Federal Judge, commit a murder on federal property, and so on, then you may be charged with a federal crime.
Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce and travel. So transporting a minor accross state lines for purposes of prostitution is a federal crime. But being a plain ol’ pimp and sticking to your hometown is a state crime.
Sometimes federal prosecutors will get involved if a state is unable or unwilling to convict an obvious criminal. There have been a few cases of racist juries acquitting white people who have murdered black people, despite good evidence. The crime of murder could not be tried under federal jurisdiction, but they could prosecute the guy for “violating the civil rights” of the victim, which is a federal crime.
Here’s a link to Title 18 of the U.S. Code, which deals with federal crimes.
Here in the OKC*, Terry Nichols is on trial on the state charges of the murder of 160 people April 19th, 1995.
He has already been convicted on federal charges of manslaughter and conspiracy with Timothy McViegh in the deaths of 8 federal employees April 19th, 1995.
The state’s argument, if I’ve understood the almost continuous coverage here in the OKC, is they want Nichols to pay for the murders he committed and also just in case the fed case ever gets overturned.
I know, it doesn’t actually answer the OP, but it gives some background info to any one reading that there can be differences in state and federal charges.
Link
*Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA