Whether releasing a defendant on bail relinquishes a sovereign's primary jurisdiction over that defendant

The other side of the split

Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.

• On the other side · 6th Cir.United States v. Croft450 F.2d 1094

  “Croft, 450 F.2d 1094 (6th Cir.1971), held that when a defendant is charged with a federal offense and released on bail, the federal government does not lose its primary jurisdiction.” — Taylor v. Reno, acknowledging the split

• Joined by · 2d Cir.Roche v. Sizer675 F.2d 507

  “Sizer, 675 F.2d 507 (2d Cir.1982), held that primary jurisdiction passes to the state when a defendant posts bond on federal charges and is subsequently arrested by the state.” — Taylor v. Reno, acknowledging the split

• Joined by · 9th Cir.Strand v. Schmittroth251 F.2d 590

  “Schmittroth, 251 F.2d 590 (9th Cir.1957), we held that the federal government gave up primary jurisdiction when it released a sentenced prisoner on probation and the prisoner was later arrested on state charges.” — Taylor v. Reno, acknowledging the split

• Discussed · 9th Cir.Clark v. Floyd80 F.3d 371

  “Floyd, 80 F.3d 371 (9th Cir.1996), decided more recently, also supports the proposition that the federal government relinquished primary jurisdiction .over Taylor when it released him on his own recognizance.” — Taylor v. Reno, acknowledging the split

What the split turns on

Doctrines & tests:

primary jurisdiction