Английский язык. Учебное пособие. Бабушкин А.П - 16 стр.

UptoLike

17
intervene. Cases raising federal questions also may be started in the federal courts.
Nearly one-third of all federal civil cases cite diversity of citizen-ship of federal
questions as the basis for seeking federal jurisdiction.
The federal district courts also have the authority to hear cases involving the
Constitution, federal law, admiralty and maritime issues, the actions of executive
agencies, and they have the exclusive power to hear bankruptcy petitions. Cases
involving numerous federal laws are likely to be heard in the federal courts but the
federal courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over them, which means that
state
courts also may hear some Cases involving federal law.
If an individual argues that
he or she has a right or claim under federal law, there are no financial or diversity
of citizenship requirements to having the case decided by the federal courts. The
possible laws involved in these cases are numerous and include: civil rights,
constitutional rights of criminal defendants, labor laws. Social Security, commerce,
antitrust, and others. In many of these cases the federal government itself is a party.
Text B
Besides overlapping in a variety of civil cases,
both {he federal and state court
systems decide criminal cases.
Most crimes only violate state law and can be tried
only in the state courts. Certain other specialized crimes, such as counterfeiting,
treason, and illegal immigration are federal crimes tried only in the federal courts.
However, many other crimes violate
both
state and federal laws and could involve
either court system. Examples are robbery and larceny, embezzlement, auto theft
(primarily organized and interstate crime), forgery, and narcotics. It also is possible
for an individual to be prosecuted in both state and federal courts for a single
act
that
violates different
laws.
For example, a person charged with murder or other crimes of
violence usually will be tried in a state trial court of general jurisdiction, but also
could be charged and prosecuted in federal court for a different crime, most likely
conspiracy to deny the victim’s civil rights. Therefore, killing another person can be
defined and punished differently in the state and federal courts.
Federal prosecuting attorneys are likely to file a case if state prosecutors fail to act in
a case, or if federal prosecutors and the U.S. Justice Department believe that justice
was not served by a state court verdict. An example of this overlap occurred in the
recent case of a Miami policeman who confessed to cooperating with other police
officers in allegedly murdering a black traffic violator but was granted immunity
from prosecution by the state in exchange for his testimony against the other
policemen. At the close of the state trial he was charged with the federal crime of
violating the civil rights of the victim.
Federal involvement in state cases is not merely a technical or strictly legal
issue, since it is not automatically required by law. Judges, prosecutors, and other
officials in the U.S. Justice Department who believe that state courts have not acted
justly use their own
discretion
to start federal cases to “reverse” or compensate for
state decisions. These are newsworthy and controversial policy decisions that reflect
different political and social values and the ability of various interest groups to