Initially, a defendant's case is at a trial court (Federal, State, Circuit Courts).
Then the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal before finally moving to the Supreme Court of the state or at the federal level.
But it is not true that all cases must move to the Supreme Court when the defendant appeals. The movement to the highest court requires the acceptance of the defendant's argument and the merit of each case.
Thus, the defendant's case can move from a <em>trial court,</em><em> an </em><em>appeals court,</em><em> and then to the </em><em>supreme court.</em>
Learn more: brainly.com/question/11640159
Yes it is illegal. It violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is considered sexual harassment when the conduct is severe enough. If it bothers coworkers, they have a right to call the police.
"Federal jurisdiction" refers to the legal scope of the government's powers in the United States. In other words, it refers to the extent to which the federal government is entitled to act in matters of law. This is important because the United States is a federation, and this means that the federal government is the part of the government that has authority to rule over the states and keep the country unified.
Several historical factors contributed to the development of fedeal jurisdiction. For example, the Constitution has contributed to the development of this jurisdiction by outlining what the powers that correspond to the states and to the federal goverment are. The judiciary is then responsible of ensuring that the federal government is acting at all times within these bounds. The separation of power allows for this to happen, as each branch of government is given different tasks that require collaboration, but separate jurisdictions. Finally, federalism gave the United States its structure, allowing the states and the federal government to work together, but have separate tasks.
In Palko v. Connecticut (1937), the Supreme Court had to decide whether "due process of law" means states must obey the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The observation of the Supreme Court is that the convict cannot be punished two times for the same offense. It is simple and very clear that the convict cannot be punished under the fourth and fifth amendments for same offense.
In this particular case, the prosecution has charged Frank Palko for first-degree murder and the court has given a decree as life imprisonment. But the actual nature crime amounts to second-degree murder.
So, the state of Connecticut appealed against this judgment and it has been proved that offense made by Frank Palko amounts to second-degree murder and the death penalty is awarded to convict. The Supreme Court's main decision in Palko vs Connecticut was Palko was the victim of unconstitutional double jeopardy.
