In State v. Ringquist, the defendant was charged with drug possession. The defense filed a motion to suppress evidence on the grounds that the police lacked probable cause to obtain a search warrant to search the defendant’s apartment, and the court granted the motion. The state appealed to the state supreme court, stating that the warrant was obtained based on probably cause. After hearing the case, the state supreme court found that the district court erred in suppressing the evidence, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
State v. Ringquist is a function of the state court system because it began with a criminal conviction that was initially tried in a district court at the state level. The case was then appealed at the state district court level, and it progressed to the state supreme court, which is the venue where the case was ultimately decided. The case does not involve a federal question, nor does it involve a federal statute or diverse parties; therefore, it falls within the state court’s jurisdiction.
The district court had original jurisdiction due to the nature of the case, however, the final venue of the case was the state supreme court because it was brought up on appeal. 2. 3. US v. Martinez The defendant in US v. Martinez was convicted of illegally re-entering the U. S. after previously having been removed. This was a violation of federal statute 8 U. S. C. § 1326. Prior to the sentencing phase, the defendant filed an objection to the Presentence Report, arguing that his prior conviction under the California Penal Code did not constitute a violent offense. The U. S.
District Court found that the prior crime did constitute a violent offense; however the defendant appealed to the 9th Circuit Court and the District Court’s finding was reversed. In US v. Martinez, This case is a function of the federal court system because the initial case involved the federal sentencing guidelines in a case in which the defendant violated a federal statute. Although the Circuit Court must make a decision regarding a prior conviction under a state statute, the major issue in this case the effect the state prior offense will have on the application on the federal sentencing of the defendant.
In this case, the U. S. District Court had original jurisdiction because the case ultimately involved sentencing under a federal statute, and the final venue was the U. S. Circuit Court, which handles federal appeals. 4. U. S. v. Williams The defendant in U. S. v. Williams was found guilty of violating federal statute 21 U. S. C. § 846 by the U. S. District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan. The defendant filed a motion to change venue, arguing that Texas was the proper venue for the trial. The District Court judge denied the motion.
The Sixth Circuit found that the District Court improperly dismissed the motion. Consequently, the Circuit Court reversed the conviction. In this case, the defendant was originally tried in a U. S. District Court because he was convicted of violating a federal statute. Consequently, this case is a function of the federal court system. After the defendant’s motion to change the venue was denied, the defendant appealed to the U. S. Circuit Court, which had appellate jurisdiction over the case. Here the difference between jurisdiction and original venue are extreme.
The original venue in fact did not have jurisdiction over the case because the criminal acts in question occurred in another state. The Circuit Court’s opinion states that the government tried the case in Michigan for the sake of their own convenience. This case should have been tried in a U. S. District Court in Texas, because the violation of the federal statute occurred there, and there were not sufficient ties to Michigan. 5. Cruller v. Florida The defendant in this case was convicted of one count of robbery without a firearm and one count of carjacking firearm in violation of two Florida statutes.
Because the charges stemmed from one act, the defendant appealed, arguing that the record only supports conviction of one offense and that he was therefore protected under the constitutional protection against double jeopardy from being convicted of both offenses. The state supreme court found that the legislators intended to punish both crimes separately, and that the defendant could be convicted of both. This finding was based on the fact that car jacking was not covered under the robbery statute.
This case is a function of the state court system because it stemmed from a criminal conviction trial at a county court. The defendant appealed his conviction, which allowed the state supreme court to have jurisdiction over the matter. The main issue of the case involved a state statute; therefore the state court system was the appropriate system in which to decide the case. Although the case mentions double jeopardy, a constitutional issue, the state supreme court is allowed to apply constitutional requirements, when applicable, and there is no need to try the case in the federal court system.