Also known as: state criminals · state crime · state-level criminal
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A criminal prosecution initiated and conducted by a state government in its own courts to enforce state penal laws.
Sean Steele faces trial in state court after officers search his home without a warrant and seize incriminating documents. The state attempts to introduce the documents at trial. The court suppresses the evidence because the search violated the Fourth Amendment and the exclusionary rule applies directly to the state proceeding.
Santiago Sanchez is prosecuted in state court under a rarely enforced statute. He files a federal suit seeking to halt the ongoing case, claiming retaliation for protected speech. The federal district court denies the injunction and requires Sanchez to raise his constitutional defenses in the state forum.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sydney Santos is charged under a state criminal statute that bans nearly all abortions except to save the mother's life. She moves to dismiss the prosecution on constitutional grounds. The court must evaluate whether the statute can stand given limits on state power to criminalize the procedure at early stages of pregnancy.
Scott Summers is convicted in state court after his appointed counsel fails to investigate key alibi witnesses. Summers petitions for post-conviction relief, arguing that counsel's performance fell below professional standards and prejudiced the outcome. The state court must apply the two-part test to decide whether the conviction stands.
Sylvia Santos is arrested by state police and questioned at length without receiving warnings about her rights. She makes incriminating statements that the prosecution seeks to introduce at her state trial. The court excludes the statements because they were obtained during custodial interrogation without the required advisements.
Seth Shapiro is convicted in state court of a weapons offense. The judge increases the sentence beyond the statutory maximum after finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the crime was committed with racial bias. The appellate court vacates the enhanced sentence because any fact that raises the penalty ceiling must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Federal courts must generally abstain from enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings out of principles of comity and federalism. Abstention is required unless the prosecution is brought in bad faith, amounts to harassment, or rests on a flagrantly unconstitutional statute with no hope of valid application. A single pending case with concrete evidence of criminal conduct does not trigger an exception even when the defendant alleges retaliation.
Supporting sources
The exclusionary rule applies to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment. Evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violate the Constitution is inadmissible in state court just as it is in federal court. The rule deters police misconduct and is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Supporting sources
Mere allegations of retaliation or viewpoint discrimination are insufficient to overcome abstention. The defendant must demonstrate concrete facts establishing bad-faith prosecution, such as a pattern of repeated baseless charges or a statute that is facially and hopelessly invalid. Without that showing, the federal court must allow the state proceeding to continue.
Supporting sources
…statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch , 402 U.S., at 67-72. To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of…