Lack of jurisdiction - Revision history

Ibjadmin: /* Footnotes */

2010-11-12T13:42:24Z

Footnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 12 November 2010
Line 31:		Line 31:
	See [[Defenses]]		See [[Defenses]]

	==~~Footnotes~~==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ibjadmin: /* Footnotes */

2010-11-12T13:42:14Z

Footnotes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 12 November 2010
Line 32:		Line 32:

	==Footnotes==		==Footnotes==

	<references/>		<references/>
	~~----~~

	~~See [[Defenses]]~~

Ibjadmin: /* Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context */

2010-11-12T13:42:04Z

Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 12 November 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	===Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

	Proper personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established by the location of where a crime is committed. Personal jurisdiction is established over an accused by issuance of a subpoena, indictment or information from a court sitting within the proper geographic location. If a court fails to properly establish jurisdiction over an individual, or if the crime took place outside the court's geographical reach, then the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure � 12(b)(3).<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.		Proper personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established by the location of where a crime is committed. Personal jurisdiction is established over an accused by issuance of a subpoena, indictment or information from a court sitting within the proper geographic location. If a court fails to properly establish jurisdiction over an individual, or if the crime took place outside the court's geographical reach, then the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Section 12(b)(3).<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.

	===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

Ibjadmin: /* Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context */

2010-11-12T13:41:53Z

Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 12 November 2010
Line 17:		Line 17:
	===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

	Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear a case involving a specific subject or type of criminal proceeding. In federal criminal cases (offenses against the laws of the United States), the federal district courts of the United States have subject matter jurisdiction granted under 18 U.S.C. � 3231.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html</ref> For state criminal cases, most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, which includes the authority to prosecute violations of the criminal laws of that state.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/7910/Jurisdiction-State-Federal-Criminal-Court-Jurisdiction.html</ref> In the U.S., the majority of criminal cases are state crimes and federal jurisdiction will only come into play if a federal law is broken.		Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear a case involving a specific subject or type of criminal proceeding. In federal criminal cases (offenses against the laws of the United States), the federal district courts of the United States have subject matter jurisdiction granted under 18 U.S.C. Section 3231.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html</ref> For state criminal cases, most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, which includes the authority to prosecute violations of the criminal laws of that state.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/7910/Jurisdiction-State-Federal-Criminal-Court-Jurisdiction.html</ref> In the U.S., the majority of criminal cases are state crimes and federal jurisdiction will only come into play if a federal law is broken.

	Some courts however have specialized jurisdiction as defined by statute. For instance, federal bankruptcy cases, including criminal offenses arising from bankruptcy issues, have proper subject matter jurisdiction only in federal bankruptcy courts per 28 U.S.C. � 1334.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1334.html#a</ref>		Some courts however have specialized jurisdiction as defined by statute. For instance, federal bankruptcy cases, including criminal offenses arising from bankruptcy issues, have proper subject matter jurisdiction only in federal bankruptcy courts per 28 U.S.C. Section 1334.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1334.html#a</ref>

	Because of the federal system in the U.S., courts may have concurrent personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In such situations, either court has the legal authority to hear the case. For instance, a person accused of a drug related offense might face state drug charges as well as federal drug trafficking charges for the same course of conduct. Normally in such circumstances, the relevant law enforcement agencies will come to an agreement about which agency takes primary jurisdiction. It is possible, however, that the defendant could face prosecution in both Federal and State court.		Because of the federal system in the U.S., courts may have concurrent personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In such situations, either court has the legal authority to hear the case. For instance, a person accused of a drug related offense might face state drug charges as well as federal drug trafficking charges for the same course of conduct. Normally in such circumstances, the relevant law enforcement agencies will come to an agreement about which agency takes primary jurisdiction. It is possible, however, that the defendant could face prosecution in both Federal and State court.

	If a prosecution is begun in a court of improper subject matter jurisdiction, the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure � 12(b)(3).<ref> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.		If a prosecution is begun in a court of improper subject matter jurisdiction, the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Section 12(b)(3).<ref> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

	===Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

Ibjadmin: /* Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context */

2010-11-12T13:41:32Z

Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 12 November 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:
	===Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

	Proper personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established by the location of where a crime is committed. Personal jurisdiction is established over an accused by issuance of a subpoena, indictment or information from a court sitting within the proper geographic location. If a court fails to properly establish jurisdiction over an individual, or if the crime took place outside the court's geographical reach, then the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3).<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.		Proper personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established by the location of where a crime is committed. Personal jurisdiction is established over an accused by issuance of a subpoena, indictment or information from a court sitting within the proper geographic location. If a court fails to properly establish jurisdiction over an individual, or if the crime took place outside the court's geographical reach, then the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure � 12(b)(3).<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.

	===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

	Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear a case involving a specific subject or type of criminal proceeding. In federal criminal cases (offenses against the laws of the United States), the federal district courts of the United States have subject matter jurisdiction granted under 18 U.S.C. 3231.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html</ref> For state criminal cases, most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, which includes the authority to prosecute violations of the criminal laws of that state.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/7910/Jurisdiction-State-Federal-Criminal-Court-Jurisdiction.html</ref> In the U.S., the majority of criminal cases are state crimes and federal jurisdiction will only come into play if a federal law is broken.		Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear a case involving a specific subject or type of criminal proceeding. In federal criminal cases (offenses against the laws of the United States), the federal district courts of the United States have subject matter jurisdiction granted under 18 U.S.C. � 3231.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html</ref> For state criminal cases, most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, which includes the authority to prosecute violations of the criminal laws of that state.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/7910/Jurisdiction-State-Federal-Criminal-Court-Jurisdiction.html</ref> In the U.S., the majority of criminal cases are state crimes and federal jurisdiction will only come into play if a federal law is broken.

	Some courts however have specialized jurisdiction as defined by statute. For instance, federal bankruptcy cases, including criminal offenses arising from bankruptcy issues, have proper subject matter jurisdiction only in federal bankruptcy courts per 28 U.S.C. 1334.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1334.html#a</ref>		Some courts however have specialized jurisdiction as defined by statute. For instance, federal bankruptcy cases, including criminal offenses arising from bankruptcy issues, have proper subject matter jurisdiction only in federal bankruptcy courts per 28 U.S.C. � 1334.<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1334.html#a</ref>

	Because of the federal system in the U.S., courts may have concurrent personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In such situations, either court has the legal authority to hear the case. For instance, a person accused of a drug related offense might face state drug charges as well as federal drug trafficking charges for the same course of conduct. Normally in such circumstances, the relevant law enforcement agencies will come to an agreement about which agency takes primary jurisdiction. It is possible, however, that the defendant could face prosecution in both Federal and State court.		Because of the federal system in the U.S., courts may have concurrent personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In such situations, either court has the legal authority to hear the case. For instance, a person accused of a drug related offense might face state drug charges as well as federal drug trafficking charges for the same course of conduct. Normally in such circumstances, the relevant law enforcement agencies will come to an agreement about which agency takes primary jurisdiction. It is possible, however, that the defendant could face prosecution in both Federal and State court.

	If a prosecution is begun in a court of improper subject matter jurisdiction, the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3).<ref> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.		If a prosecution is begun in a court of improper subject matter jurisdiction, the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure � 12(b)(3).<ref> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

	===Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

	Law enforcement agencies have territorial boundaries within which they are able to exercise authority, a geographical area known commonly as their jurisdiction.<ref>http://www.ehow.com/about_6464897_definitions-jurisdiction-criminal-justice.html</ref>		Law enforcement agencies have territorial boundaries within which they are able to exercise authority, a geographical area known commonly as their jurisdiction.<ref>http://www.ehow.com/about_6464897_definitions-jurisdiction-criminal-justice.html</ref>
			----
			See [[Defenses]]

	==Footnotes==		==Footnotes==

Jbraun at 13:34, 19 October 2010

2010-10-19T13:34:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 19 October 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==

	In the context of criminal law, jurisdiction is the authority of a sovereign governing body to legislatively define criminal activity and to prosecute individuals who violate those criminal laws within the sovereign's geographic bounds. Generally speaking, a sovereign nation may only prescribe rules that apply within its geographic boundaries or to its citizens at large, meaning a sovereign cannot create crimes in a foreign jurisdiction.		In the context of criminal law, jurisdiction is the authority of a sovereign governing body to legislatively define criminal activity and to prosecute individuals who violate those criminal laws within the sovereign's geographic bounds. Generally speaking, a sovereign nation may only prescribe rules that apply within its geographic boundaries or to its citizens at large, meaning a sovereign cannot create crimes in a foreign jurisdiction.

	For a criminal case, proper jurisdiction is defined by the location of criminal activity and the subject matter of the criminal activity that occurred. In order for a court to be able to prosecute an individual for any charged crime, the prosecuting court must have proper personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the individual. Should either of these elements be lacking, the accused may be able to argue that the court has no power to proceed with the prosecution and that the proceedings be abandoned. Jurisdictional rules and the procedure for arguing a lack of jurisdiction over the accused are specific to each court and the procedure for ending prosecution on a lack of criminal jurisdiction argument will vary by court and sovereign.		For a criminal case, proper jurisdiction is defined by the location of criminal activity and the subject matter of the criminal activity that occurred. In order for a court to be able to prosecute an individual for any charged crime, the prosecuting court must have proper personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the individual. Should either of these elements be lacking, the accused may be able to argue that the court has no power to proceed with the prosecution and that the proceedings be abandoned. Jurisdictional rules and the procedure for arguing a lack of jurisdiction over the accused are specific to each court and the procedure for ending prosecution on a lack of criminal jurisdiction argument will vary by court and sovereign.

	For a further discussion on the theory of jurisdiction in a broader context, please see [[Jurisdiction]].		For a further discussion on the theory of jurisdiction in a broader context, please see [[Jurisdiction]].
Line 9:		Line 9:
	==United States==		==United States==

	In the U.S. criminal justice system, there is a multi-layered system of authority within the federal structure that divides personal jurisdiction amongst the Federal government and the States. Additionally, subject matter jurisdiction is apportioned amongst a variety of courts both at the Federal and State level.		In the U.S. criminal justice system, there is a multi-layered system of authority within the federal structure that divides personal jurisdiction amongst the Federal government and the States. Additionally, subject matter jurisdiction is apportioned amongst a variety of courts both at the Federal and State level.

	===Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

	Proper personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established by the location of where a crime is committed. Personal jurisdiction is established over an accused by issuance of a subpoena, indictment or information from a court sitting within the proper geographic location. If a court fails to properly establish jurisdiction over an individual, or if the crime took place outside the court's geographical reach, then the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.		<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.


	===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

	Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear a case involving a specific subject or type of criminal proceeding. In the U.S., the majority of criminal cases are state crimes and federal jurisdiction will only come into play if a federal law is broken.		<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/3231.html</ref> For state criminal cases, most state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, which includes the authority to prosecute violations of the criminal laws of that state.<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/7910/Jurisdiction-State-Federal-Criminal-Court-Jurisdiction.html</ref> In the U.S., the majority of criminal cases are state crimes and federal jurisdiction will only come into play if a federal law is broken.

	Some courts however have specialized jurisdiction as defined by statute.		<ref>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1334.html#a</ref>

	Because of the federal system in the U.S., courts may have concurrent personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In such situations, either court has the legal authority to hear the case. For instance, a person accused of a drug related offense might face state drug charges as well as federal drug trafficking charges for the same course of conduct. Normally in such circumstances, the relevant law enforcement agencies will come to an agreement about which agency takes primary jurisdiction. It is possible, however, that the defendant could face prosecution in both Federal and State court.		Because of the federal system in the U.S., courts may have concurrent personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In such situations, either court has the legal authority to hear the case. For instance, a person accused of a drug related offense might face state drug charges as well as federal drug trafficking charges for the same course of conduct. Normally in such circumstances, the relevant law enforcement agencies will come to an agreement about which agency takes primary jurisdiction. It is possible, however, that the defendant could face prosecution in both Federal and State court.

	If a prosecution is begun in a court of improper subject matter jurisdiction, the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of jurisdiction. State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.		<ref> http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule12.htm</ref> State courts will have individualized rules for making motions to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

	===Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===		===Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

	Law enforcement agencies have territorial boundaries within which they are able to exercise authority, a geographical area known commonly as their jurisdiction.		Law enforcement agencies have territorial boundaries within which they are able to exercise authority, a geographical area known commonly as their jurisdiction.<ref>http://www.ehow.com/about_6464897_definitions-jurisdiction-criminal-justice.html</ref>

	==Footnotes==		==Footnotes==

			<references/>
	----		----

	See [[Defenses]]		See [[Defenses]]

Jbraun at 09:09, 19 October 2010

2010-10-19T09:09:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:09, 19 October 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~The~~ court in which the ~~case~~ is ~~brought lacks~~ legal authority to ~~adjudicate~~ the case		==Background==

			In the context of criminal law, jurisdiction is the authority of a sovereign governing body to legislatively define criminal activity and to prosecute individuals who violate those criminal laws within the sovereign's geographic bounds. Generally speaking, a sovereign nation may only prescribe rules that apply within its geographic boundaries or to its citizens at large, meaning a sovereign cannot create crimes in a foreign jurisdiction.

			For a criminal case, proper jurisdiction is defined by the location of criminal activity and the subject matter of the criminal activity that occurred. In order for a court to be able to prosecute an individual for any charged crime, the prosecuting court must have proper personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the individual. Should either of these elements be lacking, the accused may be able to argue that the court has no power to proceed with the prosecution and that the proceedings be abandoned. Jurisdictional rules and the procedure for arguing a lack of jurisdiction over the accused are specific to each court and the procedure for ending prosecution on a lack of criminal jurisdiction argument will vary by court and sovereign.

			For a further discussion on the theory of jurisdiction in a broader context, please see [[Jurisdiction]].

			==United States==

			In the U.S. criminal justice system, there is a multi-layered system of authority within the federal structure that divides personal jurisdiction amongst the Federal government and the States. Additionally, subject matter jurisdiction is apportioned amongst a variety of courts both at the Federal and State level.

			===Personal Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

			Proper personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established by the location of where a crime is committed. Personal jurisdiction is established over an accused by issuance of a subpoena, indictment or information from a court sitting within the proper geographic location. If a court fails to properly establish jurisdiction over an individual, or if the crime took place outside the court's geographical reach, then the accused can make a motion to dismiss the proceeding based on a lack of personal jurisdiction. In federal courts, the motion alleging a defect in jurisdiction is codified in


			===Subject Matter Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

			which includes the authority to prosecute violations of the criminal laws of that state. In the U.S., the majority of criminal cases are state crimes and federal jurisdiction will only come into play if a federal law is broken.



			Because of the federal system in the U.S., courts may have concurrent personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In such situations, either court has the legal authority to hear the case. For instance, a person accused of a drug related offense might face state drug charges as well as federal drug trafficking charges for the same course of conduct. Normally in such circumstances, the relevant law enforcement agencies will come to an agreement about which agency takes primary jurisdiction. It is possible, however, that the defendant could face prosecution in both Federal and State court.



			===Other Forms of Jurisdiction in the Criminal Justice Context===

			Law enforcement agencies have territorial boundaries within which they are able to exercise authority, a geographical area known commonly as their jurisdiction.

			==Footnotes==

			----

	See [[Defenses]]		See [[Defenses]]

Ibjadmin: /* Defenses */

2010-06-08T20:13:08Z

Defenses

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 8 June 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The court in which the case is brought lacks legal authority to adjudicate the case		The court in which the case is brought lacks legal authority to adjudicate the case

	~~== Defenses ==~~		See [[Defenses]]

	~~'''Table of Contents'''~~

	~~===Procedural Defenses===~~
	* [[Double jeopardy]]
	*[[ Statutory Limitation]]
	*[[ Lack of jurisdiction]]
	* [[Entrapment]]
	* [[~~Procedural defects]]~~
	* [[Motion to suppress]]
	*[[ Immunity and Public Authority]]

	~~===Normal~~ Defenses~~===~~
	* [[Self-Defense]]
	* [[Defense of others]]
	* [[Defense of property]]
	* [[Mental Incapacity]]
	* [[Alibi]]
	* [[Necessity]]
	* [[Duress]]
	* [[Physical Impossibility]]
	* [[Mistake of Law]]
	* [[Mistake of Fact]]
	* [[Mistake of identity]]
	* [[Consent]]
	* [[Lack of intent]]
	* [[Maltreated Women Syndrome]]
	*[[ Intoxication]]
	* [[Criminal act with Sincere Intent]]

Ddemetriou at 08:21, 31 May 2010

2010-05-31T08:21:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 31 May 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	The court in which the case is brought lacks legal authority to adjudicate the case		The court in which the case is brought lacks legal authority to adjudicate the case

			== Defenses ==

			'''Table of Contents'''

			===Procedural Defenses===
			* [[Double jeopardy]]
			*[[ Statutory Limitation]]
			*[[ Lack of jurisdiction]]
			* [[Entrapment]]
			* [[Procedural defects]]
			* [[Motion to suppress]]
			*[[ Immunity and Public Authority]]

			===Normal Defenses===
			* [[Self-Defense]]
			* [[Defense of others]]
			* [[Defense of property]]
			* [[Mental Incapacity]]
			* [[Alibi]]
			* [[Necessity]]
			* [[Duress]]
			* [[Physical Impossibility]]
			* [[Mistake of Law]]
			* [[Mistake of Fact]]
			* [[Mistake of identity]]
			* [[Consent]]
			* [[Lack of intent]]
			* [[Maltreated Women Syndrome]]
			*[[ Intoxication]]
			* [[Criminal act with Sincere Intent]]

Ddemetriou: Created page with 'The court in which the case is brought lacks legal authority to adjudicate the case'

2010-04-07T10:00:13Z

Created page with 'The court in which the case is brought lacks legal authority to adjudicate the case'

New page

The court in which the case is brought lacks legal authority to adjudicate the case