court and that once the state charges were dropped, he was prosecuted in federal court because he is African-American. Concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal courts exists where cocaine is involved. This Court has not yet addressed whether prosecuting a case in federal court when the state court has concurrent jurisdiction violates the defendant’s due process rights. Several circuits have ruled that where a defendant violates both state and federal laws, either or both can prosecute the defendant. See United States v. Jacobs, 4 F.3d 603, 605 (8th Cir.1993) (prosecuting a federal crime in federal court that could have been prosecuted in state court does not violate a defendant’s due process rights); see also United States v. Langston, 970 F.2d 692, 699 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). This Court agrees. Given the above, Smith’s
holding that a new jersey liquor license is a property interest for purposes of due process analysis and that the statutory process by which municipalities set the hours during which alcoholic beverages may be sold must afford procedural due process to licensees holding that the relevant question is whether the prosecutors comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process holding that the denial of due process in a particular case is subject to harmless error analysis holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment holding their due process analysis places the responsibility for the ultimate charging decision on the state and federal prosecutors