CRIMINAL LAW - DISCUSSION 1 WEEK 2

The limitation that the constitution impose on federal jurisdiction in criminal cases are:
(1) The United States is a party (United vs John Sam), (2) Have violated federal laws, (3) Must be a case between citizens of different states and exceed $75,000, (4) Bankruptcy, copyright infringement, patent tampering, and maritime law cases. Further as per the constitution any criminal violations of federal law must be tried in federal court and robbery of a bank with monies insured by a federal agency will be held in a federal court.

Federal courts can also hear a case if violation is challenged that a criminal act is not with the state’s authority but a federal concern and act appropriately.

Examples of what problems that might occur if this did not exist.

(1) Possible mistrial
(2) Cases judged in wrong court
(3) Conflict or problems with appeals
http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu2b&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/CCA93B3B87C844BC85256C7900460860?opendocument
In my opinion, having different laws in differing states may serve as an advantage because some activities may be deemed mischief in other states where strict rigidity is upheld stringently these activities are a crime. I believe it depends on the area and value of the property or area located. The higher the revenue of the property the more stricter and harsher the punishment for crimes committed in this area. Having a differing criteria is not always a sign of discrimination but because of the high profile of people…safety and security is a number one priority and they pay for the privilege.
Most laws are uniform and are based on original statutes and allow less paperwork if consistency is enabled to be maintained and less confusion for all…legal personnel and public. Keeping everything factual and precise will always allow uniformity and as in all cases there will of course be a diverse way of approaching all cases.
Discussion 2 Week 2
Criminal Law, 11th edition. Gardner/Anderson (Text Book)
Mens rea (p.52) - The criminal intent or state of mind. (This reflects a person's mindset that is determined to commit a crime.)
Actus reus (p. 52) - The criminal act. (This reflects an act of criminality that a person participates in, e.g., theft, shoplifting, etc.)
------
A presumption is a rule of law that the trier of fact shall the existence of a state of facts without evidence being produced. P. 73
Inference - a conclusion or deduction that a jury or judge may draw from a fact or a group of facts presented to them. P. 76
--------
Presumptions enable a fact finder to try to logically tie one fact to another as long as there is the possibility to conjunctively make
a point or pinpoint a needed point to make a accusation stick
--------.
Inferences are similar to undisclosed or not exactly written in stone facts. But are conclusions or deductions that anyone of legal
counsel can use in making a case or point against a suspect.