When cases that would otherwise lie in different districts are related, which court may take jurisdiction over all of them, and must it do so?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In a practice file we read the complaint or indictment in each case for the facts that fix territorial jurisdiction, such as where the alleged acts took place or where the defendant resides, and the papers showing the cases concern the same transaction or dispute. The docket shows which court already holds jurisdiction over a case in that group.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes the provision at its word: where cases with different territorial jurisdiction are related to each other, the court that already has jurisdiction over a case among them may take jurisdiction over the other cases as well. The permission is written as 'may take jurisdiction', so jurisdiction over the further cases does not arise by itself.
Another reading marks what the provision does not supply: it requires only that the cases be 'related', without saying what makes them related, and it reaches territorial jurisdiction alone, leaving subject-matter and instance jurisdiction to other rules. The file must therefore show the relation, not merely assert it.
Your judgment
If courts in two districts each hold a related case, what in the papers shows the cases are connected closely enough for one court to reach the other?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the Criminal Procedure Act is amended to define when cases are related for this purpose, or if a court decision decides whether the court with jurisdiction may decline to take the further cases.