Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
In this particular case, there are three different culprits. One of them has turned out to be a highly useful criminal informant. Between the other two, one is a major drug dealer, and the other appears to be still somehow reluctant in supplying drugs. As such, the courts where they should be tried are a matter of great significance. There are three optional courts in which each of the suspects can be tried. These are the: Wichita Municipal Court, U.S District Court, and the Sedgwick County District Court which operates in the state of Kansas. To solve this issue, it is imperative that one has a profound understanding of the differences between the state court systems and the federal court systems. This case requires carefully analyzing and determining where each criminal is to be tried.
As per the given memo, it is safe to conclude that Jones is the criminal informant. First of all, cases involving criminal or confidential informants have become highly popular in the United States judicial system. In some cases, it may require an individual to leverage the information he or she has for financial benefits. On the other hand, some people just exchange the information they have for immunity against their criminal activities or only to broker a deal out of hail (Low, Jeffries, & Bradley, 2014). According to the American Constitution, law enforcers have the right to arrest or not to arrest suspects. In this particular case, the police have leverage on Jones. He is caught with cocaine on the 6th of February, 2005. However, he is not suspected of being the dealer or supplier. He happens to be in third possession of the drug (Neubauer, & Meinhold, 2010).
Having brokered a deal with the federal-state police, he is required to help undercover police workers penetrate into the drug world. He indeed plays his role and is responsible for the information obtained about the other two suspects. The challenge is that Jones has a record of two prior arrests on the same issue. In the arrangement between him and the federal state policy, he only has immunity for certain illegal acts he commits while aiding the undercover officers. However, this does not shield him from the criminal acts he was engaged in before which includes the third possession of the illicit drugs. That being the case, he is certainly bound to undergo trial (Neubauer, & Meinhold, 2010).
In the state of Kansas, the three-strikes law is very much active. Since Jones was arrested twice prior to these events, he is obliged to suffer the weight of this law if he is taken to a state court. It implies that he will be given a very long sentence (Fletcher, 2013). On the other hand, there is the risk of being subjected to relatively longer sentencing in a federal court. In cases involving criminal or confidential informants, there are provisions on how courts should handle such cases. For one thing, the provisional § 5K1.1 of the constitution states that the tribunals may issue a relatively lower jail term or sentence if the accused has been of substantial assistance to the judicial system. According to Alexandra Natapoff(2010), “18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) permits a court to sentence a defendant below these statutory mandatory minimums if the government files a motion stating that the defendant has provided “substantial assistance”. I believe that Jones should be tried in a federal court. Since Jones was of considerable help, he will be given a sentence that is relatively lower than the minimum mandatory. Given that he was working with the Federal state police, it is much easier to launch a motion of substantial aid in the federal courts. Going to the state court would deprive him of the immunity he had while the investigations were ongoing (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2016).
Smith happens to have no prior criminal records relating to drugs. It seems that he might have just started the drug-supplying business. It could also explain why he is reluctant to sell to strangers. He is more comfortable providing to his acquaintances and friends. He should be tried in the state court. Taking him to a federal court could mean getting a long sentence for him. The state judicial system is known to handle most such criminal cases. As such, he should be tried by the state district court (Buenger, Muniz, & Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015).
The case of Thompson is more serious than that of the other two. To start with, he is the main dealer despite the fact that he avoids distributing drugs to the local suppliers. Though he avoided dealing with the undercover police workers directly, he was noted to deal with Jones on several occasions. Given the weight of his cases, he should be tried in the U.S District Courts. Regarding that there was no direct contact between him and the undercover police workers, it will be hard to convince the judge. Furthermore, Jones is not a credible witness due to his past convictions and behavior, persuading the judge could be a real hassle (Hogan, 2006).
References
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. (2016). Comparing Federal & State Courts. Web.
Buenger, M. L., Muniz, P. J., & Edward Elgar Publishing. (2015). American judicial power: The state court perspective. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub, Ltd.
Fletcher, W. (2013). Gilbert Law Summaries on Federal Courts. New York, NY: West Academic.
Hogan, S. O. (2006). The judicial branch of state government: People, process, and politics. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Low, P. W., Jeffries, J. C., & Bradley, C. A. (2014). Federal courts and the law of federal-state relations. Washington, DC: Foundation Press.
Natapoff, A. (2010). Secret Justice: Criminal Informants and America’s Underground Legal System. Web.
Neubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2010). Judicial process: Law, courts, and politics in the United States. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.