Sometimes, the prosecution will seek excessive penalties for those being tried in a criminal defense matter. In an effort to make an example of the accused - and perhaps just to make a "career case" - prosecutors will apply over-the-top charges and argue for the maximum prison sentence.

It seems this may be the case in a South Carolina cockfighting ring that was discovered in 2008. Six people were arrested, charged and convicted of violating animal welfare laws. They were convicted in South Carolina but also by the U.S. government in a federal court. The former considers the crime a misdemeanor with a maximum one-year sentence, while the latter carries five years worth of jail time.

The six people that were convicted have filed an appeal, stating that the federal charge should not apply because the U.S. government should not be dealing with a state matter. The federal charge came about because it was argued that there was interstate commerce going on to allow the cockfighting ring to function. Things such as equipment, vitamins and recordkeeping items were brought in from outside South Carolina to support the operation.

The attorney representing the appeal made an interesting point regarding interstate commerce. "Under the theory used by the government in this case, Congress would have the power to make littering in a state a (federal) crime."

In other words: you could buy a bag of potato chips in North Carolina, cross the border into South Carolina where you promptly drop the bag on the ground and then - according to the argument presented by the defense - be charged with a federal offense for interstate commerce

Is the interstate commerce law being applied justly? It was used in the same manner for the Michael Vick dog fighting case in 2007, but it is now up to an appeals court to determine if the ruling should stick.

Source: MSNBC, "Cockfighting: Feds should butt out, defendants argue," James Eng, Jan. 24, 2012