This is certainly a generalisation, but I’ve repeatedly made that observation in different contexts (books, films, message board discussions - including here -, personal conversation…), so I suppose there is something going on that justifies this question.
The thing that I have noticed is that in situations where someone is threatening someone else with legal action, or someone is assessing the risk of facing legal proceedings (criminal or civil), it is emphasised that this would be in a federal court. Now I do understand that in America, both the state level and the federal level have their own judiciaries, and that the systems coexist in parallel, each having its own defined jurisdiction; I’m aware of all that. What I wonder is why the federal nature of the legal proceedings is emphasised. It gives me the impression that for Americans, it is considered scarier to be before a federal court than a state court. Why is this?
Federal litigation can be more expensive under some circumstances, and differences in federal vs. state procedure may give one side an advantage in certain situations.
But I think the general idea of federal court = scary comes more from the criminal side of things.
Federal prosecutors have vastly more resources than their state counterparts, the positions are considered to be more prestigious (and therefore attract higher-caliber candidates), they work fewer cases, and they tend to be much more aggressive when it comes to investigations, plea negotiations and charging. The rules of evidence in federal court are also more advantageous to the prosecution in many areas.
Because the FBI, IRS, BATF and the USPS do not fuck around and can bury you in a cell like el Chapo or kick you to the curb like Richard Jewel. Pretty much unlimited resources to mess with you for years and years even if you eventually end up exonerated.
Courts are intimidating places. Federal Courts more so. More formal, usually grander in design, and less chaotic then many state courts. Federal judges seem (accurately) to have more absolute power of the litigants (and are not afraid to exercise it). Even some lawyers are uncomfortable appearing in federal courts. As one Federal Judge yelled at me one day “This is Federal Court, you’re expected to bring your A-Game.” Compared to many state courts, they are better funded, better staffed, and have lighter dockets.
Usually, Federal courts hear larger case. For diversity jurisdiction, for example, there must be at least $75,000 in controversy. Alternatively, they are hearing cases based on federal laws (Title VII, etc).
I had a trademark lawsuit in federal court several years ago, fuck it was expensive. The paperwork the judge required to a lot of my lawyers time (some of that was the other lawyer’s game was racking up the hours) and it also was glacially slow. It took us almost a year from the suit getting filed to see the inside of a courtroom and close to another year after that before the case came to trail. My lawyer told me that similar suits in state court would have been wrapped in 6 months and cost 25% as much.
In the end we settled and I paid the otehr guy 10K rather than pay 30K to have my day in court where eve if I won It would be another 12-18 months to get paid.
I don’t think either is true, is it? It’s not that the federal courts are by themselves superior to the state court; both judicial systems have their independent appellate system, and at the federal level you have an appeal from the first-instance District Court to the federal Courts of Appeals.
Some are, to be sure. But not all. The big difference is that sentences for federal crimes tend to be much more severe. When I was defending marijuana growers in the 90s, the same grow operation that would get you 5 years mandatory minimum in federal court (100 plants) (10 years if you possessed a gun) would usually bring a 90 day sentence in state court.