A number of defendants in the Georgia state racketeering case against Donald Trump and 18 others are attempting to have the case removed (or transferred) to the Federal District Court.
There is no question that the charges against these 19
individuals are for violations of Georgia state law. It made sense, then, that
the prosecutor filed the charges in the state court. As of this writing, at least two of the
defendants have asked that their cases be transferred to the Federal District
Court because there are federal law issues that arise from their conduct.
Here is where it gets a bit complicated. As a general rule, purely
state law violations are tried in state court. Similarly, federal law violations
are tried in the federal courts. The defendants are suggesting that there are state
AND federal implications to their charges. As such, the only proper place to
hold the trial (if the case is not dismissed) is the Federal District Court.
That argument is correct. A state court does not have jurisdiction (or the authority
to hear the case) when there are Federal law issues, but a federal court properly
takes jurisdiction if there are both federal and state issues.
In order to have the case removed to federal court, defendants
must show that their conduct raised federal law issues that were not considered
when the charges against them were brought. Those federal issues are, according
to the argument, essential to their defense.
As a defendant, I am telling the court that even if
everything in the indictment against me is true, I still should not be found
guilty because I have a complete federal excuse for what I did. Federal law
provides many protections for individuals who are serving in a federal office,
including being immune (free) from prosecution if what they did was part of
their job. This is an important and legitimate safeguard.
The problem for defendants is that they cannot even raise the federal defense issue in the state court. Therefore, the defendants in the Georgia state case have asked the Federal District Court in Georgia to take the case to raise them.
What the district court judge needs to decide from the outset is whether there truly is a federal issue. This is not an automatic decision. The judge must determine whether there is an actual federal issue or whether the defendant is simply trying to get the case moved to the federal court to get it out of the state court. In other words, is this a legitimate defense.
There are a number of reasons why a defendant would want the
case transferred to the federal court.
The best outcome is a finding that the defendant has a
complete federal defense to his or her actions. The case is then dismissed before
a trial even takes place. Even if the judge rules against the defendant on the
federal arguments, the case does not then go back to the state court. The federal
court retains jurisdiction.
If the case goes to trial, I want it heard in the federal
court. Here are a few of the many reasons.
First, delay. If one of my goals is to stretch out the process,
removing the case to the federal court adds additional procedural steps before trial,
and each of these take time. Some federal issues (if decided against the
defendant) can be appealed even before a trial occurs. Also, due to the federal
court calendar, trials will often be scheduled later.
Second, there is a larger pool of qualified attorneys to
defend you. The federal rules of evidence and procedure are generally universal
(with some notable exceptions). Rules and procedures in the state courts vary
substantially. Therefore, lawyers who practice in the federal courts anywhere
in the country have a degree of familiarity on their side.
Third, the jury pool for the district court is larger and
presumably more diverse. This is especially helpful in geographic areas where
the state court populace is not particularly favorable to your side. The goal
of every defendant is to have jury members who do not think alike and are even
antagonistic to each other.
Fourth, if you lose, you generally are processed through the
federal incarceration system where conditions are generally better (a relative
term) than state prisons.
With all that said, there is one “benefit” to a federal
court trial that is absent when a case is removed from the state court—pardons.
Federal convictions can generally be pardoned by the president; state
convictions cannot. However, since the federal court is ultimately hearing a
case on state issues, any pardoning options remain the same as if the trial
were held in the state court.
No comments:
Post a Comment