Introduction
Cases may include many jurisdictions for a variety of reasons. For instance, in state courts, the victim of a crime can live in a different state than the one in which the crime was committed. Alternatively, the alleged offender may reside in a different state than where the crime was committed. On the other hand, cases involving multiple federal courts and both state and federal charges are known as multijurisdictional cases (Dudley,2022).
Discussion
A defendant may face many trials for the same offense in different courts. If found guilty of both state and federal offenses, the state penalty is carried out first, then the federal one. There are several types of such cases: fraud, insider trading or corporate theft, corporate espionage, drug trafficking and money laundering, counterfeiting, extortion, and public corruption and bribery are multijurisdictional.
A multijurisdictional investigation is one in which law enforcement from various jurisdictions collaborates to solve a crime. Authorities from California and Texas participated in the United States v. Lopez investigation. Lopez was found guilty of the counts following a probe in both states. Lopez would not have been extradited to California and would have instead been detained for a traffic infraction if the inquiry had only been undertaken in one jurisdiction (Calabresi, 1995). Lopez would not have been convicted of the offense for which he was put on trial if he had not been extradited to California for breaking the terms of his probation. That would provide a different result. Lopez was found guilty following a multijurisdictional inquiry and was given a lengthy prison term.
Conclusion
The investigation, conducted in numerous jurisdictions, directly resulted in the perpetrator’s conviction. The defendant would not have been moved to California to face trial there if the probe was not done (Encyclopædia Britannica, n.d.). The inquiry, which covered many jurisdictions, directly led to an extension of the offender’s sentence. If a multijurisdictional inquiry had been carried out, there are two possible ways the case’s outcome might have been different. He would never have been extradited to California if he had been detained for a minor traffic infraction instead of a more severe offense (Justia Law, n.d.). For starters, he would not have been found guilty of breaking his probation rules.
References
Calabresi, S. G. (1995). “a government of Limited and enumerated powers”: In defense of united states v. Lopez. Michigan Law Review, 94(3), 752. Web.
Dudley, D.M. (2022). Multi-jurisdictional cases: Defense lawyer for federal and state crime. Web.
Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. (n.d.). United States v. Lopez. Encyclopædia Britannica. Web.
Justia Law. (n.d.). United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Web.