So, I don't really know much about this topic, but I'm curious as to the difference between the state court trying the case and the federal court trying the case, if the jurors are going to be pulled from the district that the case is tried in, no matter what.
Pete; Do you think they are going to stand trial for their crimes in each state separately?
Couldn't they, though? Wouldn't that be the most technically correct way to do it?
I suppose it depends on the charges themselves. These obviously are not the people who actually flew planes into buildings, so they're being charged with conspiracy-related things and such. In that case, I guess any of the three venues is an option.
There's probably not going to be just one trial. The crimes themselves happened in separate locations and they most likely give rise to separate charges. There'll likely be trials in all three states, just as there were different trials in different states in the DC Sniper attacks.
So, I don't really know much about this topic, but I'm curious as to the difference between the state court trying the case and the federal court trying the case, if the jurors are going to be pulled from the district that the case is tried in, no matter what.
Subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal crimes are tried in federal courts.
So, I don't really know much about this topic, but I'm curious as to the difference between the state court trying the case and the federal court trying the case, if the jurors are going to be pulled from the district that the case is tried in, no matter what.
Subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal crimes are tried in federal courts.
But what is the actual difference here? Is it just a name?
OK, the explanation that Kilarney linked to on Wikipedia specifically said intent, so I wasn't sure. I didn't check the rule itself (I don't even know which rule covers it...I only know the CivPro rules). I think you would have to demonstrate that another venue would offer you a more impartial jury pool to overcome the 6th Am. though...there has been widespread media bias about the 9/11 conspirators for a long time now. There's no more guarantee of an impartial jury pool in PA or VA than there is in NY. In fact, there are a lot of highly-educated people in the southern NY area, which I think would tend to counter impartiality a bit.
Pete - the same thing that happens when a nurse is on the jury in a medical malpractice case. As Joe sort of said, jurors are not allowed to bring their professional expert knowledge into deliberations. They are supposed to take ONLY the evidence provided and deliberate on that alone. There may have been a good reason that the information was excluded from the trial, or their personal knowledge as a nurse may not be quite accurate. Lots of reasons not to let the jury take the personal testimony of a jury member into account.
So, I don't really know much about this topic, but I'm curious as to the difference between the state court trying the case and the federal court trying the case, if the jurors are going to be pulled from the district that the case is tried in, no matter what.
Subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal crimes are tried in federal courts.
But what is the actual difference here? Is it just a name?
Short, oversimplified answer: different procedural rules, different evidence rules, different crimes, differnt sentencing.
So, I don't really know much about this topic, but I'm curious as to the difference between the state court trying the case and the federal court trying the case, if the jurors are going to be pulled from the district that the case is tried in, no matter what.
Subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal crimes are tried in federal courts.
But what is the actual difference here? Is it just a name?
The difference is the test used for jurisdiction. There are different things that can give a federal court jurisdiction. In civil litigation, there are two main tests:
Subject-matter: If the case is governed by federal law, the case is tried by (1)a federal court (2) using federal law. Diversity: If the case is governed by state law, there are certain factors that can kick it into a federal court, in which case it is tried by (1) a federal court (2) using the applicable state law.
In criminal cases, the federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction for sure over cases that deal with federal law. There may be other tests for jurisdiction in criminal cases as well...that's a known unknown for me. I know that the Commerce Clause makes it a particularly sticky subject at times...the federal government can make a case that it has jurisdiction over any crime that crosses state lines.
(oversimplified, Cliiff notes addition to Nuri's list of jurisdiction issues). . . and in personam jurisdiction - if someone (including corporations) lives in your jurisdiction or has sufficient ties to your jurisdiction, you can hail them into court: in rem jurisdiction - your courts have jurisdiction over property within the jurisdiction: and quasi in rem jurisdiction for intangible properties. There can also be concurrent jurisdiction with other courts.
For crimes, consider a crime committed in Jefferson County, KY. Jefferson District Court, Jefferson Circuit Court, or the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky may all have jurisdiction. The deciding factor on where the trial will be held is whether the crime was a misdemeanor, felony. or federal crime.
Federal courts also have jurisdiction over crimes committed on federal property. I once had a client smack her husband at Fort Knox. We had to deal with her case in federal court even though it was a simple assault.
Keep in mind that double jeopardy and/or res judicata prohibits a trial in a different venue on the same matter. So if the feds lose in NY, they can't bring the same action against the same person in PA federal court and hope to get lucky on the second try. This is true even if both courts are acceptable under rules of jurisdiction and venue.
So while different defendants may be tried in different venues, any one defendant is likely to be tried in just one venue.
Here is one interesting risk. If the feds brought the case in PA, a defense motion to change venue would be much tougher. If the defense in NY wins a motion to change venue, it is NOT up to the feds where the case gets transferred to. They could do well, or they could do poorly. It's probably academic, though, since I've yet to see a part of the country that wasn't extremely angry about 9/11.
One clarification. For a federal court to have jurisdiction over a criminal matter, there must be a violation of a federal criminal statute. Likewise, a state criminal court deals solely with state (and perhaps subdivisions within the state) crimes. State courts don't hear criminal cases involving federal crimes.
When defendants are tried in both courts, it is because they have been charged with violating both a state and federal law. The two trials are totally separate.
Keep in mind that double jeopardy and/or res judicata prohibits a trial in a different venue on the same matter. So if the feds lose in NY, they can't bring the same action against the same person in PA federal court and hope to get lucky on the second try. This is true even if both courts are acceptable under rules of jurisdiction and venue.
So while different defendants may be tried in different venues, any one defendant is likely to be tried in just one venue.
Here is one interesting risk. If the feds brought the case in PA, a defense motion to change venue would be much tougher. If the defense in NY wins a motion to change venue, it is NOT up to the feds where the case gets transferred to. They could do well, or they could do poorly. It's probably academic, though, since I've yet to see a part of the country that wasn't extremely angry about 9/11.
This is what I was getting at when I asked Pete if he thought they could all be tried in each jurisdiction. It depends on what crimes they are being tried for. They generally can't be tried for the same crime, so they could only be tried for different crimes. My understanding is that that doesn't mean that the other court can slap a different charge on the same behavior and try them again, either...they have to prosecute a different set of actions.
Man, you all know how to take the fun out of a political argument...
Hey man, this is fun for me. We're finally actually having an enlightening discussion. AND it is relevant to the topic of the thread. That almost never happens. :P Besides, if you want to go into politics, you might want to get used to this.
One clarification. For a federal court to have jurisdiction over a criminal matter, there must be a violation of a federal criminal statute or crimes that can be subjected to the Commerce Clause. Likewise, a state criminal court deals solely with state (and perhaps subdivisions within the state) crimes. State courts don't hear criminal cases involving federal crimes.
When defendants are tried in both courts, it is because they have been charged with violating both a state and federal law. The two trials are totally separate.
Why does it feel like everyone is already assuming guilt? If he is set free, it means there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute. What we are doing now is a collective Schadenfreude. I know I use that word a lot, but that's because it's a disturbing trend in our Western society. It happens a lot. It happened with Michael Jackson. It happened with OJ Simpson. It happened with Scott Petersen. It happened with Oswald.
We want someone to blame, to point at, to rage at, to take our our righteous indignation. Forget for a moment that he is innocent until proven guilty. Let's just lock him away another eight years without trial. That kind of thinking is disgusting.
Why does it feel like everyone is already assuming guilt? If he is set free, it means there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute. What we are doing now is a collective Schadenfreude. I know I use that word a lot, but that's because it's a disturbing trend in our Western society. We want someone to blame, to point at, to rage at, to take our our righteous indignation. Forget for a moment that he is innocent until proven guilty. Let's just lock him away another eight years without trial. That kind of thinking is disgusting.
That is totally the opposite of what we are doing. Everyone here is arguing over the fairest location to hold the trial.
Keep in mind that double jeopardy and/or res judicata prohibits a trial in a different venue on the same matter. So if the feds lose in NY, they can't bring the same action against the same person in PA federal court and hope to get lucky on the second try. This is true even if both courts are acceptable under rules of jurisdiction and venue.
So while different defendants may be tried in different venues, any one defendant is likely to be tried in just one venue.
. . . unless the actual crimes or charged activities are different.charges for different acts. For instance, if there was evidence that X committed conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in NYC and that X committed conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in VA, hels going to end up being tried in both jurisdictions.
That is totally the opposite of what we are doing. Everyone here is arguing over the fairest location to hold the trial.
The constant question (primarily in the media, and echoed by some in this thread) is, "What if he's acquitted?" It seems like that question is predicated on a panicked assumption that a "guilty" man will get a chance at a trial -- no matter how slight -- go free. I think so much of the fervor over a trial in the US has more to do with fear that due process will not pan out in accordance with our predispositions.
Nuri, whether or not a crime is created under the commerce clause, there still must be a federal crime charged for a federal court to have a jurisdiction
That is totally the opposite of what we are doing. Everyone here is arguing over the fairest location to hold the trial.
The constant question (primarily in the media, and echoed by some in this thread) is, "What if he's acquitted?" It seems like that question is predicated on a panicked assumption that a "guilty" man will go free. I think so much of the fervor over a trial in the US has more to do with fear that due process will not pan out in accordance with our predispositions.
Although I totally agree about stupid mass media stuff, this doesn't help much.
Keep in mind that double jeopardy and/or res judicata prohibits a trial in a different venue on the same matter. So if the feds lose in NY, they can't bring the same action against the same person in PA federal court and hope to get lucky on the second try. This is true even if both courts are acceptable under rules of jurisdiction and venue.
So while different defendants may be tried in different venues, any one defendant is likely to be tried in just one venue.
. . . unless the actual crimes or charged activities are different.charges for different acts. For instance, if there was evidence that X committed conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in NYC and that X committed conspiracy to commit a terrorist act in VA, hels going to end up being tried in both jurisdictions.
That's why I said "same action." Different crimes charged are different "actions." And of course there are rules about bringing all possible charges if able, but that's a whole different ball of wax.
Forget for a moment that he is innocent until proven guilty. Let's just lock him away another eight years without trial. That kind of thinking is disgusting.
Although I agree with you, I also agree with Jon Stewart's implication that, if somehow this man walks, vigilante justice will come into play. There is no way for this trial to not be prejudiced, and even if there's a "not guilty" verdict, the alleged terrorist was sentenced the moment we imprisoned him.
The constant question (primarily in the media, and echoed by some in this thread) is, "What if he's acquitted?" It seems like that question is predicated on a panicked assumption that a "guilty" man will get a chance at a trial -- no matter how slight -- go free. I think so much of the fervor over a trial in the US has more to do with fear that due process will not pan out in accordance with our predispositions.
But the President at the time told us that he was guilty. He couldn't not be guilty, that's just unpossible!
Respectfully, no. If there was not sufficient wvidence to prosecute, they wouldn't have been indicted.
Just because something islogicaldoesn't mean thatpeople react logically.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. If they were indicted, then the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute has already been answered affirmatively. An acquital is not going to change that. An acquital just means that insufficient proof was shown to sustain a guilty verdict, not that there was insufficient evidence to try the case.
Nuri, whether or not a crime is created under the commerce clause, there still must be a federal crime charged for a federal court to have a jurisdiction
You said it had to be violating a federal statute. Not all crimes that are federally prosecuted have a specific federal statute. Yes, you have to be charged with a federal crime, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily a federal statute that defines the crime. A kidnapping that is a breach of Virginia state law might be federally prosecuted if it the kidnappers cross into Maryland. That's a common law elevation to federal law.
Nuri, whether or not a crime is created under the commerce clause, there still must be a federal crime charged for a federal court to have a jurisdiction
You said it had to be violating a federal statute.
Yeah. Now, this is said with all due respect and not to start a fight or be snarky or anything, but: K, can you name any purely state-law crime that implicates the commerce clause? By its very nature, a crime that implicates the commerce clause will be a federal crime. That's how we arrived at the federal crime of wire fraud.
Nuri, whether or not a crime is created under the commerce clause, there still must be a federal crime charged for a federal court to have a jurisdiction
You said it had to be violating a federal statute.
Yeah. Now, this is said with all due respect and not to start a fight or be snarky or anything, but: K, can you name any purely state-law crime that implicates the commerce clause? By its very nature, a crime that implicates the commerce clause will be a federal crime. That's how we arrived at the federal crime of wire fraud.
That's what I was trying to say.
I think Nuri is under the impression that you can be charged criminally in federal court if you violate a state law where the underlying facts have a component of interstate commerce. That isn't quite true. The feds have to make it a crime on the federal level.
As for a purely state crime, I can think of many that involve interstate commerce.
Take this example: Person A lives in California. Person B lives in Montana. Person A defrauds person B with a bogus Ebay listing. California can prosecute Person A under state law. Assuming there is an applicable federal law, Person A can be prosecuted under federal law.
When I was a prosecutor, we prosecuted such matters in state court on a regular basis. If a crime crosses state lines, generally speaking, the person can be prosecuted in either state. And of course there is a good chance the feds could prosecute them.
The problem is that the feds often will only take high level crimes. They won't go after a guy who used Ebay to rip someone off of $150.00. That's why it is important that states may also prosecute such matters.
But... a state law can not be based itself solely on the commerce clause. There has to be some other basis for the law. The commerce clause is a federal issue - indeed.
...Just because the feds don't chose to prosecute it doesn't mean they can't. Jurisdiction can overlap. It's not mutually exclusive. Something isn't "not a crime" just because no one prosecutes it. That's like saying the Statute of Limitations has only run if someone points out that it has run. It only has an EFFECT if someone points out that it has run, but failing to point it out doesn't mean it hasn't run. Something that can be charged as a federal crime may not be prosecuted as a federal crime. That doesn't mean the feds don't have the jurisdiction to take it...it just means they don't act on it.
Anyway, I have to go read Contracts now, and I'm in danger of losing a bet with my roommate if I continue this discussion, so I will bow out. Have fun!
Comments
Pete - the same thing that happens when a nurse is on the jury in a medical malpractice case. As Joe sort of said, jurors are not allowed to bring their professional expert knowledge into deliberations. They are supposed to take ONLY the evidence provided and deliberate on that alone. There may have been a good reason that the information was excluded from the trial, or their personal knowledge as a nurse may not be quite accurate. Lots of reasons not to let the jury take the personal testimony of a jury member into account.
Subject-matter: If the case is governed by federal law, the case is tried by (1)a federal court (2) using federal law.
Diversity: If the case is governed by state law, there are certain factors that can kick it into a federal court, in which case it is tried by (1) a federal court (2) using the applicable state law.
In criminal cases, the federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction for sure over cases that deal with federal law. There may be other tests for jurisdiction in criminal cases as well...that's a known unknown for me. I know that the Commerce Clause makes it a particularly sticky subject at times...the federal government can make a case that it has jurisdiction over any crime that crosses state lines.
For crimes, consider a crime committed in Jefferson County, KY. Jefferson District Court, Jefferson Circuit Court, or the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky may all have jurisdiction. The deciding factor on where the trial will be held is whether the crime was a misdemeanor, felony. or federal crime.
Federal courts also have jurisdiction over crimes committed on federal property. I once had a client smack her husband at Fort Knox. We had to deal with her case in federal court even though it was a simple assault.
So while different defendants may be tried in different venues, any one defendant is likely to be tried in just one venue.
Here is one interesting risk. If the feds brought the case in PA, a defense motion to change venue would be much tougher. If the defense in NY wins a motion to change venue, it is NOT up to the feds where the case gets transferred to. They could do well, or they could do poorly. It's probably academic, though, since I've yet to see a part of the country that wasn't extremely angry about 9/11.
When defendants are tried in both courts, it is because they have been charged with violating both a state and federal law. The two trials are totally separate.
We want someone to blame, to point at, to rage at, to take our our righteous indignation. Forget for a moment that he is innocent until proven guilty. Let's just lock him away another eight years without trial. That kind of thinking is disgusting.
Statutory law common law.
There are only a few people taking the "OMG WHAT IF THE TRRST GETS AWAY!!!111!!1!OMG" standpoint.
I think Nuri is under the impression that you can be charged criminally in federal court if you violate a state law where the underlying facts have a component of interstate commerce. That isn't quite true. The feds have to make it a crime on the federal level.
As for a purely state crime, I can think of many that involve interstate commerce.
Take this example: Person A lives in California. Person B lives in Montana. Person A defrauds person B with a bogus Ebay listing. California can prosecute Person A under state law. Assuming there is an applicable federal law, Person A can be prosecuted under federal law.
When I was a prosecutor, we prosecuted such matters in state court on a regular basis. If a crime crosses state lines, generally speaking, the person can be prosecuted in either state. And of course there is a good chance the feds could prosecute them.
The problem is that the feds often will only take high level crimes. They won't go after a guy who used Ebay to rip someone off of $150.00. That's why it is important that states may also prosecute such matters.
But... a state law can not be based itself solely on the commerce clause. There has to be some other basis for the law. The commerce clause is a federal issue - indeed.
Anyway, I have to go read Contracts now, and I'm in danger of losing a bet with my roommate if I continue this discussion, so I will bow out. Have fun!