What happens if you are convicted and put on probation in a state you don&#39;t live in? How is probation handled when the offender commits a crime in one state, but lives in another? For example - a DUI usually does not involve a jail/prison sentence, but probation. While on vacation in Oregon someone gets a DUI. He lives in California. In what state will the trial be? Could the trial be moved to California? If he's convicted, will he have to move to Oregon to serve probation or would he automatically serve probation in California since he lives there? Please change crime and states as necessary.
While on vacation in Oregon someone gets a DUI. He lives in California. In what state will the trial be? Oregon. State law crimes are always tried in the jurisdiction where they are committed. A crime is committed either where the acts causing the crime took place or where the harm caused by the crime is directed. In the classic example, if you shoot and murder someone in Oregon from within California, either state (or both states) can prosecute you for murder. If you have a DUI in Oregon that doesn't involve crossing the state line, California can't try you for that crime. If he's convicted, will he have to move to Oregon to serve probation or would he automatically serve probation in California since he lives there? A standard condition of probation is to not leave the state without court permission, but the court imposing probation can authorize you to leave the state subject to other restrictions devised by the court (e.g. forfeiture of one's passport until the probation sentence is completed so that extradition is available if a felony is committed while on probation). There is also a process in place by which states can cooperate to have their probation officers supervise a convicted defendant's probation order from one state in another state (usually with the requirement that the sentencing state either pay for that service, have the defendant pay for that service, or that there be reciprocity such that California will only agree supervise people placed on probation in Oregon if Oregon will agree to supervise people placed on probation in California). It is also possible that even though probation is an available sentencing option, that for an out of state defendant, a jail sentence and/or a larger than usual fine will be imposed in lieu of a probation sentence, to avoid these complications. Of course, unless you let your lawyer (or if you are representing yourself, the court) know what you would like to arrange and take the proper legal steps to do so (which realistically requires the skills of an experienced criminal lawyer), the court won't allow you to do so.
Probably moot considering how much time has passed but here goes. California 22349(a) states that no person may drive upon a highway at speeds of greater than 65 mph. So if you're going to be convicted under 22349(a), it doesn't matter if you're going 80 or 90. The charge is that you were doing greater than 65. The judge found you were going 90. 90 > 65. Conviction secured. The only sticky part is if the judge charged you the extra $150 because he alleges you went 90 instead of 80. You could appeal that, since even the officer argues you went 80, but since the officer testified that his radar clocked you at 90, you'd probably lose, especially since the officer's rationale for writing 80 was, by his testimony, your alleged admission at the scene, and you at the scene would have reason to downplay your speed. TL;DR: Yes, the judge, as the trier of fact, can do that. Something came out during the trial (radar at 90) that contradicted the ticket (80) so the trier of fact (the judge) resolved this by going with the radar. You might have been able to get out of it, if you asked the officer why he didn't write 90 when that's what the radar read. There was a reason the officer didn't trust that radar, and if he articulated it, then the judge would likely have stuck with 80.
Perjury is a crime in every state, and being a resident of a state is not a requirement for criminality. You can't lie in court just because you don't live in a state of the court. Compelling testimony of an out of state resident will require a court from the person's state.
Generally not. A judge in sentencing has a number of options subject to the statute or common law. A fine may be one option, imprisonment another. Others include community service, a suspended sentence or death. What they choose is (subject to appeal or commutation) what you do. You can't substitute one for the other.
You can be prosecuted for the crime in the U.S., both at the federal level and at the U.S. state level (or both), completely without regard to what happened in the criminal justice process elsewhere. This is true in all of the scenarios you pose, for any offense, and with or without an extradition treaty (of course, unless the treaty had some anomalous provision to the contrary or deprived the U.S. of jurisdiction by statute rather than constitutionally of this crime). The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) that the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution is applied separately with regard to each sovereign involved and that each state and the federal government count as separate sovereigns. In the pertinent part, it states: The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government. When a defendant in a single act violates the &quot;peace and dignity&quot; of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct &quot;offences.&quot; United States v. Lanza, 260 U. S. 377, 260 U. S. 382 (1922). As the Court explained in Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, 55 U. S. 19 (1852), &quot;[a]n offence, in its legal signification, means the transgression of a law.&quot; Consequently, when the same act transgresses the laws of two sovereigns, &quot;it cannot be truly averred that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence, but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable.&quot; Id. at 55 U. S. 20. In practice, the U.S. Justice Department and most state and local prosecutors are disinclined to prosecute a crime that has already been handled by another jurisdiction and often have official, but non-binding, policies to that effect. In part, this is because an acquittal in one jurisdiction makes it likely that it is a weak case, while a conviction in one jurisdiction often constitutes sufficient punishment. There could be an issue under the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (cruel and unusual punishment) over whether a punishment imposed in a U.S. conviction for a crime needs to consider the already severe punishment imposed in another jurisdiction for the same crime in order to prevent the cumulative punishment from being cruel and unusual. But, I am not aware of authoritative case law that resolves that constitutional question. Certainly, evidence of a prior punishment for the same offense could be presented at a sentencing hearing following a conviction in mitigation of the punishment that should be imposed. Indeed, in some states time served pursuant to a conviction for the same crime in another jurisdiction might statutorily count as &quot;time served&quot; for which the defendant is legally entitled to credit at sentencing.
It is possible in principle, in the US, under the Bureau of Prison Treaty Transfer program, so that one could serve your time in Australia for example -- but not New Zealand, which isn't part of a bilateral or multilateral treaty with the US: here is the list. Canada and Australia are on the list via the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. New Zealand is (by choice) not a participant.
The most important rule for an extradition from Germany is this: If the role of the countries were reversed, would the person be convicted in Germany according to German law? You say the link claims that he couldn't be convicted now, because he would have been convicted twice for the same crime. So he wouldn't be convicted in Germany if the roles of the countries were reversed, therefore no extradition. (The next important rule is this: There must be enough evidence that the person would be prosecuted in Germany, not necessarily convicted. You also need to convince the court that the accused will get a fair trial when extradited, that there will be no cruel or unusual punishment, including death sentence, and lastly there is no extradition for small crimes when the extradition plus having to appear in a foreign court can be considered worse punishment than the actual punishment for the crime. All these irrelevant in this case, I think). "Auslieferung unstatthaft" just means "extradition inadmissible" or "extradition illegal". PS. Ludl asked "shouldn't there be some law that if someone cannot be extradited from Germany because of extradition law, they can still be prosecuted in Germany". That would be completely unnecessary. Let's say one US citizen murders another one in Germany, the USA asks for extradition (they wouldn't, because it is a German matter, but they could ask of course), and Germany rightfully refuses. Then since it is a murder on German ground, it will be prosecuted in Germany. It would be absurd to think that a failed extradition request could protect a murderer.
No. A governor has no authority under the law of another state. The governor of West Sconsin can no more pardon a conviction under the laws of East Sconsin than can the president of Mexico pardon a conviction under the laws of the United States.