context: Concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal courts exists where cocaine is involved. This Court has not yet addressed whether prosecuting a case in federal court when the state court has concurrent jurisdiction violates the defendant's due process rights. Several circuits have ruled that where a defendant violates both state and federal laws, either or both can prosecute the defendant.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 970 F.2d 692, 699
citation_a.parenthetical: holding their "due process analysis places the responsibility for the ultimate charging decision" on the state and federal prosecutors
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Jacobs, 4 F.3d 603, 605 (8th Cir.1993) (prosecuting a federal crime in federal court that could have been prosecuted in state court does not violate a defendant’s due process rights); see also United States v. Langston, 970 F.2d 692, 699 (10th Cir.1992) (holding their “due process analysis places the responsibility for the ultimate charging decision” on the state and federal prosecutors).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 4 F.3d 603, 605
citation_b.parenthetical: prosecuting a federal crime in federal court that could have been prosecuted in state court does not violate a defendant's due process rights
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Jacobs, 4 F.3d 603, 605 (8th Cir.1993) (prosecuting a federal crime in federal court that could have been prosecuted in state court does not violate a defendant’s due process rights); see also United States v. Langston, 970 F.2d 692, 699 (10th Cir.1992) (holding their “due process analysis places the responsibility for the ultimate charging decision” on the state and federal prosecutors).