How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Legal-Kal Your Own Question
Legal-Kal
Legal-Kal, Criminal Defense Lawyer
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 555
Experience:  Attorney at Law Offices of Khaled Issa
90630425
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Legal-Kal is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

From what little I think I know. . From my understanding

Customer Question

from what little I think I know. . From my understanding several points must be proven for a crime to have occurred, one of these being jurisdiction. . So is there any evidence that this court has jurisdiction in this case. . If so what would it be. . Or is it just an assumption that because you are in this courts geographical REALM that they must. . So it is just never questioned. . Of course this is hypothetical . . But could it actually be brought up and when world it be appropriate?
Submitted: 6 months ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Legal-Kal replied 6 months ago.

Good morning:

My name is ***** ***** I would be happy to provide general information regarding your question.

Jurisdiction is a procedural element of any offense of a crime (which is the opposite of a substantive element of an offense, i.e., using a gun during an armed robbery). Courts generally do assume that since a matter is in the geographical realm of the court room, that jurisdiction exists (that assumption still must be shown or proven, but Courts do not pay much attention to it as they do with substantive elements).

However, if it is determined that jurisdiction does not exist, the Defendant in a case must, at the first possible opportunity, object and file a Motion to Dismiss the charges based on a lack of jurisdiction (this can be before trial or even during trial if there was no other way to know that jurisdiction did not exist prior to trial commencing). So there is no clear "moment" when the appropriate action be taken because it depends on 1) when does the defendant know that jurisdiction does not exist and 2) does the defendant take "appropriate action" as soon as he knows jurisdiction does not exist.

Any questions based on this?

Expert:  Legal-Kal replied 6 months ago.

If you have no other questions, please remember to click ACCEPT and rate the assistance provided as that is the only way experts here can be credited for taking the time to provide information to individuals.