Federal and State Courts

Even though the federal and state courts have distinct jurisdictions, these courts have numerous differences and similarities. Thus, it is the rationale of this paper to provide a deep-rooted analysis of the relationship between the state and federal courts in the American criminal justice system. The state and federal courts function in the equivalent manner. The defendants and attorneys in the criminal cases handle prosecutors in an honest court before the sitting umpire. Juries are selected according to the constitutional requirements guaranteeing justice and an unprejudiced examination of the presented evidence (Wright, 2006). However, federal courts and state courts exhibit numerous differences. In the context of jurisdictions, the state courts are known as general jurisdictions, and the federal courts are termed as the court of limited jurisdictions (Okray, 2010).

To illustrate, the federal courts deal with fewer cases as compared to the state courts. The federal courts deal with national concerns such as federal tax offenses, illegal firearms, drug trafficking, robbery of federally insured institutions, states’ disputes, bankruptcy, laws and treaties of the country, and other matters of national interest (Okray, 2010). On the other hand, the state courts deal with the majority of the criminal cases such as probate disputes, tort cases, and family matters (Buenger, Muniz, & Edward, 2015). The federal judges may choose to issue lesser judgments than the recommended minimum verdicts for certain crimes depending on the circumstances surrounding the offense (Kim, Spohn, & Hedberg, 2015). Besides, federal court cases are expensive due to the costs associated with the discovery process.