State vs. Federal Criminal Charges: What’s the Difference?

Most criminal cases are prosecuted in state court, but some offenses can be charged in federal court. In certain situations, the same conduct can even lead to both state and federal criminal charges. Understanding the difference between state and federal jurisdiction is important because the two court systems involve different laws, prosecutors, procedures, and sentencing rules.

What Is the Difference Between State and Federal Jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction refers to a court’s authority to hear and decide a case. Jurisdiction can exist in Minnesota state court, federal court, or both.

Most crimes committed in Minnesota, including DWI, assault, theft, and drug cases, are prosecuted in state court. Federal courts have more limited jurisdiction. Federal criminal cases generally involve alleged violations of federal law, such as Medicaid fraud because Medicaid is a federal government assistance program. Federal prosecutions for Medicaid fraud have been increasing substantially in recent years. Minnesota also has its own laws prohibiting fraud against government assistance programs, so many cases could be prosecuted in either jurisdiction. As a practical matter, cases against individuals are often brought in state court, and cases against businesses or organizations are often brought in federal court.

Other common federal criminal charges include wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, federal drug offenses, and firearms offenses. Some of these crimes are prosecuted federally because they involve “interstate activity.” For example, fraudulent activity quite often involves electronic transactions or physical mail that traveled through more than one state. Drug trafficking cases often end up in federal court because drugs and money tend to travel through different states or even countries.

Can You Be Charged in Both State and Federal Court?

Yes. Conduct often violates both Minnesota law and federal law, which means a person may face charges in both state and federal court.

The Double Jeopardy Clause generally protects a person from being prosecuted twice for the same offense. However, the federal government and state governments are considered separate sovereigns. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, a state offense and a federal offense are considered separate offenses for double-jeopardy purposes when each is based on the law of a different sovereign.

As a result, a state prosecution does not always prevent a later federal prosecution based on the same underlying conduct. A person may also face states charges even after a federal case has already been resolved.

A recent example of overlapping state and federal jurisdiction is the prosecution of Luigi Mangione in connection with the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Mangione has faced separate prosecutions in federal court, the state of New York, and the state of Pennsylvania, all arising from the same course of conduct. His case illustrates how a series of related acts can give rise to distinct charges under the laws of different sovereigns.

Federal and State Criminal Cases Can Be Very Different

Although state and federal charges may arise from the same conduct, the cases can proceed very differently. Federal criminal cases are prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office and are governed by federal criminal statutes, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the federal sentencing system.

If you are under investigation or facing criminal charges, having an attorney experienced in both state and federal criminal defense will make a substantial difference in the outcome of your case. The attorneys at Sieben & Cotter can help. If you are interested in a free, comprehensive case review, call Sieben & Cotter at 651-455-1555 to arrange your consultation, or send a request for more information.