Scenario of a crime that fails under the federal jurisdiction
A crime such as murder-for-hire appears to most people as falling under the state jurisdiction. However, in two recent cases where the parties involved came from the same state and further committing the crime in the same state qualifies the crime as belonging to the federal courts jurisdiction. According to the statute, a federal crime involves the “…use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire” (Hilden, 2003, Para.2). The inclusion of the words “interstate commerce” changes the jurisdiction of this crime completely from the state courts jurisdiction to the federal courts jurisdiction. In such a crime, ‘interstate commerce’ might imply the use of simple means like mail or telephone in the perpetration or carrying out of the crime. Cases whereby the murder-for-hire crime involves kidnapping of a person in another state or a conspiracy that spans around a number of states too attracts the attentions of feds. In the recent scenarios involving the hearing of a case concerning murder-for-hire, there arose questions when it came to determining whether an intrastate call also counted as interstate commerce. For instance, while “the Fifth circuit decided that the answer as yes, the eleventh circuit suggested it as a no” (Hilden, 2003, Para.6). However, in the second case, the cell phone happened to route a switching Center outside the state thus falling under the federal courts jurisdiction.
Scenario of a case under the state jurisdiction
As opposed to the federal courts, state courts are considered as more close to the people. These courts as a result handle cases of disputes among the people in the state (Jose, 2011, Para.4). A divorce case, which falls under the category of family disputes provides good scenario of a state court case. Since the family dispute does not involve the United States as a party, the jurisdiction of the state laws takes over to handle the case arriving at a working solution (Robinson, 1976, p.987). State cases do not usually attract the attention of people from other states outside the state where the crime has occurred since the decision reached at the end of the day does not involve so many people. However, depending on the publicity of the involved parties, many people even from outside the state might follow these cases closely. For instance, the O.J Simpson case was a state case but attracted the attention of so many people despite the fact that resolution did not affect them directly.
A scenario where state laws and federal laws exist separately and concurrently
Sometimes, it proves difficult to determine where some cases fit between federal and state courts jurisdiction. For instance, one can declare a bank robbery as a crime falling both in the federal courts jurisdiction as well as in the state courts jurisdiction. Most of the laws that declare a bank robbery a criminal offence are majorly state laws (Lexis, 1998, p.14). There exist fewer laws about bank robbery in the federal laws than there is in the state laws. A robbery that occurs in a bank insured by a federal agency qualifies the case as falling under the federal courts jurisdiction. Either the state courts or the federal courts, depending on the preferences of the involved, (Robinson, 1976, p.988) can handle such a case. Since the laws against robbery seem more clearly defined in the state level, it is only in the state courts that a person can get justice as per the law. Cases of robbery should in fact be handled in the state courts for them to be ruled justly. Therefore, given a chance, I would classify such cases as belonging to the state courts jurisdiction.
References
Jose, S. (2011). Federal vs. State Courts – Key Differences. Web.
Hilden, J. (2003).The Line between State and Federal Criminal Jurisdiction: Two Recent Murder-for-Hire Decisions Illustrate How Blurry It Can Be: Web.
Lexis, N. (1998). Understanding Federal and State Courts in US Courts Online. Web.
Robinson, T. (1976). Laches in Federal Substantive Law: Relation to Statutes Of Limitation. Hein Journals, 56, pp.987–88.