Federal Court vs. State Court: Why It Matters Which One.

Congress creates federal offenses under its constitutionally granted powers. In state courts, charges are brought based on laws enacted by state legislatures. However, this division is not always clear-cut; many actions violate both state and federal statutes, such as drug crimes, creating overlapping jurisdiction where both authorities could potentially pursue charges.

Prosecutorial discretion plays a major role when state and federal jurisdictions overlap. State and federal prosecutors may coordinate to determine the most appropriate forum. Factors such as the strength of the available evidence, the severity of the charges, and the availability of investigative and judicial resources all contribute to this decision process. These discretionary determinations can greatly affect the overall legal strategy and outcome of a case.

The U.S. Constitution protects defendants regardless of whether their prosecution is state or federal. The Bill of Rights ensures protections against self-incrimination and the assistance of counsel, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to due process, establishing a uniform baseline of constitutional protections for all accused individuals in the American legal system.

Federal criminal cases are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which establish the framework for legal processes from arraignment through sentencing. Importantly, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while governing federal civil litigation, do not apply to federal criminal proceedings. State criminal cases follow different rules prescribed by their respective state legislatures.

Evidence in federal criminal trials generally follows the Federal Rules of Evidence, which outline the conditions under which testimony, documents, and other materials can be admitted. Similarly, each state has its own specific set of evidentiary rules. These rules are used to determine what evidence is relevant, reliable, and lawfully obtained for review in court.

What Determines Whether a Criminal Case Is Federal or State?

A statute’s jurisdictional element determines the necessary connection for federal jurisdiction. While crossing state lines is often one necessary jurisdictional element for federal prosecution, crossing state lines is not a necessary condition for every federal crime. Conversely, while many federal crimes do not require state boundary crossings, many of these crimes do require evidence of use of facilities that affect interstate commerce, such as telephone lines, internet communication, or mail services.

Participation by a federal law enforcement agency in an investigation does not, in and of itself, establish federal criminal jurisdiction. Similarly, the fact that local police officers or state-level law enforcement conduct an investigation does not, in and of itself, establish either state or federal criminal jurisdiction. Local police officers and state-level law enforcement agents may conduct investigations targeting conduct that eventually justifies prosecution in federal court; conversely, federal law enforcement agencies may conduct investigations targeting conduct that eventually leads to prosecution in state court.

Even if state or local officers refer a case to federal authorities, the referral does not automatically shift the case to federal court. Instead, the ultimate charging decision rests with a federal prosecutor, and this decision is dependent upon several factors. The prosecutor must independently conclude that federal jurisdiction exists, and the prosecutor must independently decide to pursue charges based on one or more federal statutes; and the offense being charged must be an offense that federal law expressly authorizes the federal prosecutor to pursue.

In criminal cases, the concept of venue is closely related to the concept of jurisdiction. While jurisdiction determines whether the prosecution is federal or state, venue determines the physical location where the criminal case is heard. For federal criminal cases, venue generally lies in the federal district where the charged offense occurred. Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the place of trial and prosecution for federal criminal cases. For example, in most situations, a defendant’s trial in a federal criminal case will take place in the federal courthouse that serves the geographic area where the crime is alleged to have been committed.

Can I Be Charged in Both State and Federal Court?

The 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case Gamble v. United States reaffirmed the dual-sovereignty doctrine. According to this doctrine, “Defendants in the American criminal justice system can be tried twice in two different jurisdictions for the same underlying conduct, as long as each jurisdiction is conducting a separate proceeding.” This decision reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s prior holding of the same principle in the case Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959). This decision clarifies how the prosecution can pursue a case in both state and federal court despite the Double Jeopardy Clause protecting against being tried twice for the same offense.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has a “Petite policy,” adopted in 1959. This policy is an internal enforcement policy and the policy is not a codified law, but the policy prohibits a “Petite prosecution”, a successive federal prosecution of the same conduct for which a defendant was already subject to either state prosecution or federal prosecution (in a criminal case where the offense occurred in the United States). According to the Petite policy, “ la successive federal prosecution requires the prior approval of the appropriate Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice;” and “ successive prosecutions can be barred in the specific situations of criminal conspiracies and attempted federal felonies.” However, the Petite policy is a policy rather than a legal statute and it provides an internal guideline to prosecutors within the DOJ, not an enforceable right for defendants in federal cases.

2. If I am Charged in State and Federal Court, Do the Cases Move Sequentially?

If you are charged in both state and federal court, state authorities retain charging authority when a criminal case begins in federal court and federal prosecutors retain charging authority when a criminal case begins in state court. Therefore, state and federal charges can originate sequentially; and state and federal proceedings can be concurrent.

If you face state and federal charges, the state of which jurisdiction is challenged for initiating a criminal case determines where state charges will proceed. Similarly, the federal district in which you are charged determines where federal charges proceed. In some situations, a federal and state criminal case may arise from the same incident, and these cases could be heard in concurrent proceedings. Due to the resources required to conduct a federal criminal trial and due to the priority established for federal criminal proceedings, you should anticipate a state and federal criminal case may take longer to resolve than only a state or federal case.

Is It Better to Be Charged in State or Federal Court?

No criminal defendant can state, in each case he or she faces, that the charges he or she is facing are best suited for a state or federal court prosecution. Similarly, prosecutors must consider several factors before making a decision to charge a criminal defendant’s alleged conduct as a federal crime as opposed to a state crime. Federal prosecutors must consider the nature of the evidence available; they must assess whether the alleged conduct is a violation of federal law and whether the offense is in the federal government’s interest; federal prosecutors must assess available resources; and they must determine whether federal law provides for adequate punishment or other applicable sanctions for the criminal conduct that is at issue in the matter at hand.

Sentencing exposure varies significantly depending on the specific statute that the government chooses to pursue and the facts in the case at hand. The statute used to charge a criminal defendant at the state level will likely have a very different sentencing provision than a statute used to charge the criminal defendant at the federal level. Thus, while this is a common misconception, federal criminal cases are not invariably punished more severely than state criminal cases.

With regard to the length of time, neither federal nor state courts are uniformly faster or slower between when the criminal charges are filed and when the case is resolved. Instead, federal cases vary widely from district to district. The district’s caseload, the nature of the alleged offenses, the amount of discovery, and the federal judge’s trial calendar are all factors that can significantly impact the length of time that federal criminal cases remain pending.

While the Speedy Trial Act generally requires a trial to begin within 70 days of the filing of the indictment or information or the defendant’s first appearance before a judicial officer, whichever is later, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) provides a long list of exclusions for specific circumstances. Additionally, federal judges frequently grant extensions. These exclusions and extensions mean that federal cases can end up taking months or years. State criminal cases are subject to similar timing issues, and both types of cases can often end up taking the same amount of time to resolve.

Todd Spodek and the attorneys at Spodek Law Group handle federal cases of this kind from New York, Brooklyn, Queens and Los Angeles.

Are Federal Prosecutors Better Than State Prosecutors?

Federal and state criminal prosecutors face the same burden of proof at trial, and that is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There is no published data demonstrating that federal prosecutors have more training than state prosecutors.

Although there is no objective way to measure if federal prosecutors are better than state prosecutors, federal prosecutors may have an advantage because they have the support of national investigative agencies. This means that while agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and other national agencies conduct criminal investigations, lawyers from the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division prosecute the offenses that these national investigative agencies have discovered.

Within each federal district, the appointed prosecutor who heads the federal prosecution office is known as a U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the president. Assistant U.S. Attorneys are also appointed and they ordinarily litigate cases for their district’s U.S. Attorney. Prosecutors at the state level are not appointed by the president. They have various titles, county prosecutor, District Attorney, the State Attorney, state’s attorney, etc. and their authority varies across jurisdictions. While the specific titles and organizational structures differ, both state prosecutors and federal prosecutors will play a similar role in the criminal justice system.

Regardless of whether a prosecutor is at the state or federal level, their obligations to a defendant are the same. Federal and state prosecutors must both disclose any material evidence in their possession that could potentially benefit a defendant’s criminal case. This is known as “Brady disclosures” because the Supreme Court established this rule in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

While federal prosecutors may have access to more resources in order to pursue a criminal case, the legal obligations imposed on them are the same as those imposed on prosecutors at the state level. Defendants facing criminal charges in either a state or federal criminal case should prepare their defense with the understanding that prosecutors in either jurisdiction have obligations to uphold the accused defendant’s constitutional rights.

Does a Federal Felony Charge Require a Grand Jury Indictment?

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in general, requires a grand-jury indictment for the federal prosecution of a felony. Contrastedly, the U.S. Constitution has held that the requirement of a grand-jury indictment for a criminal felony is not mandated for a state court prosecution.A federal grand jury consists of 16 to 23 people chosen at random from the local community. In federal grand-jury proceedings, twelve people on the grand jury must agree that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a federal felony charge. In other words, if twelve people on the grand jury determine that there is probable cause for a defendant’s alleged criminal conduct, the grand jury will issue the indictment. An indictment establishes probable cause and not guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Generally, if you are indicted in federal court, the indictment establishes enough evidence to determine that you are the person charged with the alleged criminal offense. While there is a preliminary hearing in state criminal cases, an indictment generally takes the place of a preliminary hearing in federal criminal cases.

Under Rule 7(b), a federal defendant who is indicted can waive his or her grand-jury indictment. The reason most federal felony charges commence with a complaint, though, is that a defendant may appear in court to have an indictment decided before an actual trial. In other words, even if the court deems an indictment necessary to pursue a federal case, the federal prosecutor or prosecutors may have the authority to proceed before presenting the evidence in front of the grand jury.

2. Does a State Felony Charge Require a Grand Jury Indictment?

As mentioned above, state felony charges do not always require a grand-jury indictment. Whether a grand-jury indictment is required for a state case is up to the legislation that was passed in the jurisdiction where you were arrested. However, when a state indictment is required, the grand jury will usually consist of 12 to 23 people and each case can be determined with a majority or two-thirds majority of the grand jurors present. The exact number of jurors on a grand jury varies among each state jurisdiction.

How Is Federal Sentencing Different from State Sentencing?

The federal sentencing system has evolved over the last several decades. In 2005, in the case of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and not mandatory in federal cases. However, a federal court must still calculate the applicable advisory guideline range; then the federal judge can impose a sentence that may fall inside or outside of this range. If a defendant’s federal sentencing judge imposes a sentence that is outside of the advisory sentencing range, the sentencing judge must include relevant reasons for the deviation from the advisory guidelines.

There is a common misconception about the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and their roles. Specifically, when a criminal defendant faces a “mandatory minimum sentence,” he or she may mistakenly believe the Guidelines are mandatory in this regard as well. However, the sentencing guidelines are not what triggers mandatory minimums; rather, congressional statutes determine when a mandatory minimum applies. If Congress has determined that a mandatory minimum applies to the offense being charged, then the sentence must be in accordance with the mandatory minimum established under federal law. This is the case regardless of any sentencing guidelines established in relation to the specific statute that triggers a mandatory minimum sentence.

The federal sentencing guidelines have 43 different offense levels, starting with level 1 and ending with level 43. Generally, the higher the offense level that is attributed to the alleged federal criminal conduct, the longer the period of time the accused individual can face imprisonment at the end of the case. The specific offense levels, which can be higher or lower than the levels for similar offenses committed within the United States, also take into account factors such as the amount of financial loss involved in the criminal case. This is different than state criminal cases, where the offense level is based on the severity of the offense and the criminal defendant’s prior criminal record.

2. How Are State Criminal Sentencing Systems Different from Federal Criminal Sentencing Systems?

The state criminal sentencing system is quite different from the federal sentencing system because each state has its own legislation that is relevant in these situations. In general, state courts have different sentencing guidelines that may be advisory or mandatory depending on the specific statute under which the case is filed. The degree of sentencing discretion that a state court judge has and the types of alternative punishments available in state criminal cases vary among state courts as well.

3. Do I Face a Sentence of Parole, Prison or Supervised Release if I Am Found Guilty of a Federal Crime?

Parole generally ended for offenses committed after November 1, 1987. As of that date, no new federal prison sentences include a period of parole, and convicts sentenced in federal court generally must serve their entire prison terms unless eligible for good conduct credit. In federal criminal cases, the total amount of good-conduct credit a defendant can receive is 54 days for each year of imprisonment. Supervised release follows imprisonment in a federal criminal case. It is not a shortening of a defendant’s prison term, but a sentencing component that imposed conditions on the defendant after their release from the federal correctional system. The conditions of supervised release are determined by the federal judge and can include regular reporting to a federal probation officer, drug and alcohol testing, and travel restrictions.

Which Criminal Defense Lawyer Wins the Most Cases?

There is no official national database that identifies the single winningest criminal defense attorney. While some lawyers claim to have an impressive winning percentage for their clients’ cases, these percentages often omit dismissal and pleabargain results. Therefore, these types of claims by criminal lawyers are unreliable when trying to compare a criminal lawyer’s win rate with that of other criminal lawyers.

2. Can I Hire a State-Licensed Attorney to Defend Me in Federal Court?

Just because a lawyer has a license to practice law in your state does not necessarily mean that the lawyer is authorized to practice in federal court. All federal district courts maintain their own attorney-admission requirements. Most attorneys will need to be admitted into specific federal district courts in order to represent their clients. Some attorneys who have been licensed to practice in one state court may also have the experience, skills, and know-how of handling federal cases, while others may have only prosecuted and defended criminal cases at the state level. When interviewing potential criminal defense attorneys, be sure to ask whether they are admitted to practice in the federal district court that is handling your case.

3. Do Federal District Courts Use the Same Rules of Criminal Procedure?

Many federal district courts rely on a set of national rules that govern how federal cases are handled. While these rules apply to all federal cases, many individual federal district courts also rely on their own local rules of criminal procedure. They use these local rules to supplement the national rules as needed. Local rules are often less publicized and may only apply to specific types of criminal cases in federal court. Understanding all the rules that apply to your case, including any local rules, is important to making informed and strategic decisions.

Speak With a Federal Defense Lawyer

If you are dealing with any part of what this article describes, the next step is a conversation with a lawyer who handles these cases. Spodek Law Group is a second generation criminal defense firm practicing since 1976, representing clients nationwide from offices in New York, Brooklyn, Queens and Los Angeles. Call 212-300-5196 to speak with our team.