The Founding Fathers so desired to have the Union without necessarily weakening the states. In that vein, the federalists devised the federal government structure which envisaged three tiers of governance. These are the federal, state and local government. Several centuries down the line, the Union can be reported as being in a more perfect state. Critical issues such racism, drug abuse, economic challenges, healthcare, among others still face the United States of America. It is the resilience of its people and its institutions that keeps the nation moving. In that context, this paper shall canvass one of the most critical institutions in the American governance system. Ideally, the judiciary stands out as the custodian of justice and the administrators of justice. It can be argued that the judiciary and the third arm of government play a critical role in ensuring the continued survival of the Union and the stability which reigns supreme because of the rule of law. From the onset, it is imperative to appreciate that the American judiciary is a creature of the law having anchorage in the Constitution, federal and state legislation. This paper shall critically discuss the functionality of state and federal courts and in essence consider their role in the criminal justice system.
Foremost, it is imperative to appreciate the role of the courts from a general perspective. From the doctrine of separation of powers as anticipated by the Montesquieu, the role of the judiciary is to serve as the administrators of justice. In that context, the judiciary is to act as the final arbiters in disputes involving different parties. The parties could be individual citizens, local and state governments or federal governments and their related agencies. It is expected that the courts act fairly and in their adjudication, see to it that they deliver justice. In that context, it is imperative to appreciate the legal aphorism to the extent that in the eyes of the law, parties are equal. In addition, in respect to criminal matters, the accused is considered innocent until so proven guilty. In respect to criminal matters, the courts are expected to ensure offences committed against the states are prosecuted and punished. However, this must follow the due process as envisaged in the Constitution. The courts suffice precisely for that purpose. It is the onus of the court to ensure that legal issues relating to criminal offences are prosecuted following the letter and spirit of the law. In America, the prosecution of criminal offences is a rather delicate affair given the complex federal system. As it stands, the federal and state courts each have jurisdiction on matters that fall within their purview as anticipated by the Constitution and the relevant statutes. It is essential to note at this juncture that the federal government pursuant to the Constitutional provisions has mandate over a number of duties including but not limited to defense, international relations, international trade, homeland security and related functions. On that premise, any criminal offense arising directly from the mentioned areas and related causes fall under the federal courts jurisdiction. On the other hand, the state courts assume a residual functionality donated by the Constitution which mandates the state governments to act on any area not within the express jurisdiction of the federal government. In essence, this creates a dual nature of organization, administration and prosecution of cases. However, it should be appreciated that both levels of the courts believe in the rule of law and essentially pursue consistent laws albeit for a few exceptions which shall be mentioned later in the paper.
The Constitution, therefore, empowers both the federal and state governments to formulate their laws which they then need to implement. Pursuant to that provision, both the federal and state governments have their statutes. In relation to criminal matters, the federal government’s criminal matters are scattered in different statute that criminalizes certain activities. These statutes include the Controlled Substances Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act, among others. On the other hand, the state governments have majorly codified the criminal offences in state penal codes although a few offences lie in various legislative texts. It is also critical to note that federal courts are established pursuant to the Constitution and federal legislation while the state courts are established pursuant to state legislation. The federal government and each state have their own criminal statutes, court system, prosecutors and police agencies. For a crime to be prosecuted by either state or federal court, it depends on several factors.
The federal courts have the jurisdiction on federal matters and crimes that arise therefrom. These include the prosecution of crimes such as drug trafficking offenses, organized crime, large scale fraud, financial crimes and crimes that have special federal interests such as crimes against federal officials and fraud against the United State as a whole. Moreover, there are certain crimes that only the federal court may prosecute including custom offenses, offenses involving federal tax matters and crimes of espionage and treason. It is noteworthy that the federal courts have original and absolute jurisdiction over such crimes. This automatically ousts the jurisdiction of the state courts. This is essential as the position of the law is that failure of jurisdiction shall invalidate a judgment by a court for lack of competence over the matters. In that breadth, it is imperative to appreciate that for the class of crimes mentioned, the fact of their occurrence in a certain state does not necessarily confer jurisdiction on the state court. The law enforcement officers involved in the prosecution must be alive to this fact and see to it that the federal courts assume jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the state courts only prosecute crimes against persons such as murders and assaults, crimes against property such as robberies and thefts, among other crimes limited to their jurisdiction. These courts prosecute a greater number of crimes than federal courts do. This may be attributed to the nature of powers donated to the state by the Constitution in what may be referred to as the residuary clause. In other words, the state courts have jurisdiction over criminal issues that do not fall within the purview of the federal government. However, they may investigate and prosecute only criminal acts committed within their boundaries, while the power of the federal court or government extends throughout the United States. This limited geographical jurisdiction has in many cases occasioned lapses in the pursuit of justice. This happens more in civil matters as compared to criminal matters. However, for purposes of this paper, it is critical to concentrate only on the criminal matters. The general position of the law is that the criminal offence should be prosecuted in the geographical jurisdiction in which it occurred. This complicates the situation in two ways. One, due to the differences in criminal offences across the states, what may be considered criminal in one jurisdiction may not be criminal in the other. Secondly, with high mobility of the masses, accused persons and their victims may not be from the state in which the crimes occurred. However, generally, there is consistency in the nature of crimes with the differences being subtle. In addition, the jurisprudence in application currently has tended to favor the prosecution of crimes in the state court where the crime occurred rather than move away from it. This is different with federal related crimes. This is because, for the federal crimes, uniformity exists and it is immaterial in which state the crime occurred. In that respect prosecution of the same may occur in any of the federal courts. The state courts are not allowed to hear cases against the United States and those involving specific federal laws; these include issues within the areas of antitrust, bankruptcy, patents, copyrights and some maritime law cases.
However, it is equally essential to note that in some cases if not most cases, both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. This allows parties to choose whether to go to state courts or federal courts. The only limitation is that criminal cases that directly involve federal laws are tried only in the federal courts although most cases usually involve violations of state laws and are, therefore, tried in state courts. Interestingly, a nexus may exist in some cases such as robbery. Most of the robbery and theft cases are left to the state jurisdiction. A few federal laws on robbery do exist including the federal crime against the robbery of a bank whose deposits are insured by a federal agency. The departure in the cases often exists in the express provision of crimes relating to the federal government. An illustrative example could be cited in crimes committed on federal property, such as national parks or military reservations, and which must be prosecuted in the federal courts.
Federal courts may also hear cases concerning state laws if the issue is whether the state law violates the federal Constitution. Some conduct may be illegal under both the federal and state laws, for example, issues of employment discrimination. A litigant may seek relief in either the federal or state courts and so bring a case under the federal law or both federal and state laws. For cases involving state laws only, they must be brought only in state courts.
Persons accused of crimes are generally charged in a formal accusation called an indictment, for felonies or information, for misdemeanors. The government, on behalf of the people of United States, prosecutes the case through the United States Attorney’s Office if the charge relates to federal crimes. On the other hand, a state attorney’s office prosecutes state crimes. Cases in state courts begin in a trial court where suits are filed and evidence is presented if a case proceeds to a hearing or trial. Trials in these courts are held after extensive pre-trial procedures. The pretrial procedures are intended to sieve the cases and solve the issues in dispute among the opposing parties. Often, in criminal cases, the procedures offer the parties an opportunity to iron out their contestation and if possible reach plea bargains intended to shorten the criminal process while at the same time delivering justice to both the accused and the complainant. This approach was first muted in the American jurisdiction and is first finding application the world over. The same is invaluable in respect to civil matters. State trial courts are usually located in a courthouse in the county. If a litigant is unsatisfied with the decision of the lower court, the matter may be taken up on appeal, which is an intermediate appellate court. The state court of appeals will review the decision of the trial court and either affirm or vary the finding in accordance to the law. The latter’s determination is not final and if still unsatisfied, the litigant has the right to appeal to the highest appellate court in the state, the state supreme court which is usually located in or near the state capital.
Unlike federal courts, where judges are presidential appointees confirmed by the United State Senate and whom serve life terms in office, the majority of states have judges who are elected, and the methods of appointment for these judges vary widely. State court judges are usually distinguished attorneys who have had some political involvement and or are pursuing second careers on the bench. However, a small number of state court judges, particularly in limited jurisdiction trial courts, are non-lawyers, and are often elected to their posts.
Although there are differences in criminal procedures among the states and between the states and the federal government, some crucial principles of the U.S. criminal law and practice apply equally to all state and federal investigations and prosecutions. Also, some aspects of procedure in criminal cases are required under the Constitution of the United States. The due process is one example that can be cited for illustrative purposes. These apply equally to the state and federal prosecutions. While each court system is responsible for hearing certain types of cases, neither is completely independent of the other and the systems often interact. Moreover, solving legal disputes and vindicating legal rights are key goals of both court systems.
In conclusion, it is critical to appreciate the interdependence and correlation between the federal and state courts. While the approach by the federal courts is much more restricted and their decisions binding across the nation, the state courts have a bigger jurisdiction in relation to matters of determination. In addition, the latter’s decisions are binding only within the state’s boundaries and may only be used as persuasive law in other states. In overall, it has been advised that both courts apply judicial restraint and consult in order to avoid situations where the precedents differ. The current jurisprudence is to the extent that each court should be cautious to admit only cases within their domain. There is need to avoid instances where the roles of one court are usurped by the other. This could be fatal for the rule of law and should only be left for the political players who continue to agitate for supremacy between the state and federal governments. Ultimately, the courts suffice for the dispensation of justice and administration of equity before the law.
References
California Law. (2013, October 1). California Penal Code. San Franscisco , California . Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=pen
Clark, C. (2009). State Law in Federal Court: The Brooding Omnipresence of Erie v Tompkins. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository , 1-32.
Federal Bureau of Investigations . (2013, November 12). What we Investigate . Retrieved November 18, 2013, from Federal Bureau of Investigations : http://www.fbi.gov/
Herring, J. (2011). Criminal Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Madison, J. (2008). Federalists Paper Number 10. New York: McGraw Hill Company. Retrieved from http://www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies/btt/celebratingfreedom/pdfs/045.PDF
Samaha, D. (2010). Criminal Law. New York: Cengage Learning.
Weigend, T. (2006). Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure. Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, 2(1), 214-227.
White House. (2013, June 13). Marijuana Legalization. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from Office of The National Drug Control Policy: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/marijuana-legalization
