Although I'm no lawyer, I've heard that a court cannot try a case if it has no jurisdiction over it. In other words, a state court cannot try a federal case. But jurisdiction is also important for smaller issues.
Consider a traffic violation... a speeding ticket. Typically, this type of case is a civil one in which the State is bringing a case against the speeding driver. If I go to traffic court I could have the following conversation with the police officer in the witness chair:
Me: What is your jurisdiction?
Officer: The State.
Me: So if I wasn't in the State at the time of the alleged violation, would I be guilty?
Officer: No.
Me: Exactly what is the State, factually?
At this point, not only is it likely that the officer doesn't know the answer. It is also likely that the prosecuting attorney and/or judge will not allow him to answer. The reason is that jurisdiction is determined legally, not factually, and the officer, not a lawyer, cannot draw a legal conclusion in court.
Not only that, if he said that the State was a geographic area, it would contradict the definition of the State being used to bring a case against me in the first place. Recall that the State is bringing the case against me. How can a geographic area (the ground I'm standing on) bring a case against me?
Food for thought? I hope so.


