Criminal justice jurisdiction and authority

Jurisdiction refers to power, in this case the power to adjudicate cases (Cornell University Law School, 2009). One of the ramifications of CompuServe v. Patterson was that it established as a matter of precedent jurisdiction involving electronic transactions. CompuServe was based in Ohio and Patterson was based in Texas. Patterson had uploaded programs onto CompuServes computers in Ohio. When the suit was filed, it was ruled that Ohio would be the jurisdiction.

As a matter of course, a court only possesses jurisdiction to the extent that it is granted in the Constitution. In this case, territorial jurisdiction applies. This is set by the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment (Cornell, 2009). The clause states that no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Ibid.)

For a suit such as CompuServe v Patterson, territorial jurisdiction is relevant. There are, however, other forms of jurisdiction that could apply in a legal case. One is subject matter jurisdiction, wherein certain courts specialize is certain types of cases. Subject matter jurisdiction, however, typically comes with limits. Federal courts will only hear certain types of subject matter cases, and most state courts have stipulations concerning residency of the parties or location of the activity.

There are several other forms of jurisdiction as well. These include appellate jurisdiction, wherein a court has the power to correct the errors of a lower court; concurrent jurisdiction (wherein two courts might have the power to hear the same type of cases); and diversity jurisdiction (where Federal court may hear cases in which the parties are from different states).

Litigants may at times have the choice between Federal courts and state courts. For example, CompuServe had that option when dealing with Patterson. Because Patterson and his company were located in Texas, CompuServe could have considered diversity jurisdiction and gone to Federal court. Instead, they chose Ohio court. There are many potential reasons why a litigant would go to state court instead of Federal court. There may be precedents and rulings that favor the litigant in the state court. Also, the litigant's lawyers may be more familiar with the state court system, and the local laws.

In cross-state matters such as CompuServe v Patterson, this could give the litigant a "home court" advantage.

It may simply come down to convenience on the part of the plaintiff, if the expected outcome is neutral between the two choices. Other factors that could weight into the decision include the possibility of a jury determination of damages in a tort case; the availability of punitive damages or the ease of obtaining pretrial discovery of evidence. In each of these situations, the advantage may to be state court or Federal court. If jurisdiction allows a choice between the two, any of these criteria could sway a firm to file in one court or the other.

However, there may be instances where Federal court is preferred. The laws and rulings may favor be more favorable for the litigant in Federal court. For CompuServe, they may have chosen Federal court because it would have clearly had jurisdiction, whereas Ohio may not have had jurisdiction. This could have given Patterson an avenue for dismissal or appeal on jurisdiction grounds and CompuServe may have wished to mitigate this risk.

In determining the appropriateness of Ohio state court as a jurisdiction, we must consider the tests that would allow this case to be heard by a Federal court. Federal courts rely on the "minimum contacts" test to establish personal jurisdiction. "Minimum contacts" often relies on a three-prong test. The CompuServe v. Patterson case met all three prongs, meaning that Ohio had jurisdiction. The Federal court can exercise personal jurisdiction in the event that the state court cannot establish jurisdiction, but in this case Ohio deemed that the case arose from Patterson's contacts in Ohio (CompuServe), his purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in Ohio and that the maintenance of the suit did not offend the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (Conner, 1998).