A person is accused of robbing a convenience store in California, speeding and eluding police while carrying stolen goods in Oregon, and resisting arrest in Washington State. Which of the following is correct?
a. The trial would begin in each state court of original jurisdiction and go separately to state appellate courts if any of the charges are appealed.b. The trial would begin in an U.S. District Court for the circuit and go to the U.S. Court of Appeals if either party challenges the verdict.c. The trial would only begin and end in the federal circuit court system in each state where the crimes are alleged to have happened.d. The trial would begin in a state-level appellate court and go to the federal court of appeal if the verdict is challenged.

The correct answer here is D: the trial would begin in a state-level appellate court and go to the federal court of appeals if the veredict is challenged.

Explanation:

The reason comes from the way the judicial system is set, and depends on the jurisdiction, regarding where the crime took place. Since the person´s original crime originated in California, where he/she robbed a store, and all other offenses sprung from that first crime, and since robbery is of a higher importance than the other two ofenses, the jurisdiction to try this individual falls on the court from the state where the higher crime was committed, which is California. The Appellate court in California would have the jurisdiction to try this case and if the veredict is challenged, then, the higher court, which is the federal Court of Appeals would have to take over the case and judge it.