Criminal Justice

For purposes of this question, please begin your discussion with a definition of "concurrent jurisdiction." Please provide an example of when a federal and state court would have concurrent jurisdiction.

Next, describe the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing a criminal prosecution in federal as opposed to a state court when concurrent jurisdiction exists. What if both the state and federal courts decide to take jurisdiction; could both governments prosecute for the same offense without running afoul of the double jeopardy clause?

Finally, describe the circumstances under which federal courts intervene in state cases or when a federal court would hear a matter from a state court. When discussing this issue make sure to indicate which federal court would hear a case from a state court.

Good luck and good learning

Concurrent jurisdiction is the ability to exercise judicial review by different courts at the same time, within the same territory, and over the same subject matter. For instance, a domestic violence matter may be heard in either a general civil court or a family court in the same county. Whichever court actually exercises its jurisdiction first will do so exclusively.

A state may have concurrent jurisdiction with a federal court, for example, when a crime defined under state law is committed on federal property, and certain offenses involving Indian tribal members. State and federal courts also have concurrent jurisdiction over the Jones Act, which authorizes seaman who suffers personal injury in course of employment to bring action for damages at law.

The case of Michigan Department of Police v. Sitz. This case explores the nature of the two court systems (federal and state) that make up the American judicial system and how they interact with each other.

The separate sovereign exception to double jeopardy arises from the system of federalism in the United States, in which states are sovereigns with plenary power that have relinquished a...