I'll preface my answer by stating I'm an 0L, LS next year, so no laughing!!

I choose: B

Don't like "A" because if there is no "bad faith" then why not let it go through the state court(s), allowing a community to set the standard

C: A threat by a LEO without being able to show "bad faith", seems like a non starter, immunity

D: reasoning similar to "A", it's already in process and waiting for State supreme, why claim jurisdiction

It would probably help if I understood Jurisdiction :) Still trying to wrap my head around it. Let the slaughter ensue!

In an actual law-practice situation, my answer would be, "I'll be right back," and then I would go look up the answer, something I am very very good at doing, and someone would pay our firm probably hundreds of dollars for that. Under bar-exam-type conditions, though, since for some reason they don't let you look things up, let alone pay you, I think I would pick C.

After some prior research projects that are too dull to relate, whenever I see "federal court enjoin state proceeding" or words to that effect, I now immediately think "abstention" and "Anti-Injunction Act," because those typically preclude federal courts from -- and you may have guessed this from the name of the Act -- entering injunctions. C is the only answer in which there is no pending state proceeding to worry about. Since I think the prosecutor's threat is enough to constitute a "case or controversy," the federal court would be able to take subject-matter jurisdiction and might do so. I am guessing that the bad-faith part of the question is to cover a rule or exception I don't specfically remember where a federal court can get involved if something fishy is going on in the state proceeding. So, that's my answer.

If it's correct, please send me four hundred dollars.

Hope the book is selling well.

I think C.

When in doubt always pick C.

You should be more sensitive to people with friends or relatives who suffer from mental illness. Contrary to what you write, those diseases are not always "obvious" in adults nor do they manifest themselves in the silly kind of statement you made up. It is medically impossible to diagnose a baby as psychotic or "insane," the latter of which is not a recognized medical diagnosis, but rather a layman's colloquialism usually used to describe any behavior with which the speaker disagrees or finds strange.

Apparently humor, like mental illness in adults is not "obvious". Insanity is not a medical diagnosis, it's an archaic term of art used in law. I'm sure that most people realize that Insanity is a colloquialism. Law's funny that way. I mean, we're probably the only people left who call seventeen year olds infants. Pediatricians would have a field day with that.

Think insanity is funny, eh Pirates? We'll see how funny it is when I go insane on you.

The banana patch monster ate my manure sandwich tomorrow...the same day that your face ate my fist.

In response to "You should be more sensitive."

Don't be so sensitive! You are what's wrong with the world today. There is someone like you who has a problem with everything and if you types had it your way, no one would be able to crack a joke.

Just because insanity isn't ALWAYS funny doesn't mean it is NEVER funny. I have nothing but the deepest sympathy for the tormented souls who are compelled by inner demons to injure themselves, or who are incapable of genuine emotional connection, or who are sincerely afraid that the government is going to invade their brains.

The colorful gentleman on my block who wears a flowing purple dress and sings classic ragtime songs makes me smile. Especially when he stops singing to have a conversation with people including such statements as, "Teacher says he sick of our faces... We're all graduating tomorrow!!"

Also, I have an unusually large mouth. I can fit my fist in it. So it's not at all improbable that I could in fact eat your fist.