While I have zero comments about the Individual in question or the specific case (since I lack any background or, well, desire to fix that), the charge of super aggravated sexual assault noted in the above link does give me pause. Is there a Super-duper Aggravated Assualt charge? Or is it Ultra Aggravated? Or Most-est? Or Extra Aggravated?
Inquiring minds…
Huh? Of course federal laws apply in Texas. The Texas coppers, though, are not federal agents; they arrested him pursuant to Texas law.
Like you and your ego and your post?
Sarcasm is illegal in China, so I can appreciate the delicacy of your situation. Wink,wink, say no more.
No, no – that’s not what I’m saying, although in looking at my previous post I think I dropped a paragraph while cutting and pasting.
But to be clear: § 1111 is a federal felony murder rule. If there is a federal offense that results in a death when those listed circumstances are present, then it’s a federal murder. That’s not to say that any death by poison is a federal murder offense. Any use of poison that is a federal offense, and results in death, is a federal murder case.
Apologies for my lack of clarity.
OK, that makes more sense.
I don’t see it as a problem …it let’s us know who’s wearing a dunce cap at their computer.
Secondly, it’s really cool that there’s another Ponch out there.
But even then, the reach may be broader than you’d imagine in the hands of eager federal prosecutors.
Carol Anne Bond was furious to learn that her husband’s affair with her best friend Myrlinda Haynes had resulted in a pregnancy. So she reacted as any jilted microbiologist might: she stole 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine (an arsenic-based
substance) and potassium dichromate, used for cleaning lab equipment, from her job and coated Myrlinda’s car door, muffler, mailbox, and front door knob. The intent was not to kill, she claimed (and prosecutors agreed) – although the substances are toxic in high enough doses – but rather to give her erstwhile bestie a terrible rash.
Myrlinda saw the powder, and though she did get a minor chemical burn on her thumb, she avoided any other serious effects, even though Carol Anne repeated her dosing 24 times over 8 months. Repeated calls to the local police produced nothing but the advice to call the post office.
Postal inspectors set up surveillance cameras, and caught Carol Anne in the act: on video, she opened Myrlinda’s mailbox, stole a letter, and stuffed the car muffler with potassium dichromate.
Carol Anne was charged with mail theft, in violation of 18 USC §1708. No surprise there.
But she was also charged with violation of 18 USC §229(a): it is unlawful for any person tot knowingly develop, produce, otherwise acquire, transfer directly or indirectly, receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.
This latter law is part of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, enacted by Congress in response to the treaty known as the International Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction.
A “chemical weapon” is defined as any toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a lawful purpose. A “toxic chemical” is any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
In other words, prosecutors said that this was a federal crime because of an international treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons.
If Myrlinda had died, presumably prosecutors would have charged her with felony murder under § 1111.
Carol Anne was convicted, and the Third Circuit upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the intent of Congress was not to encompass “purely local crime.”
It would have worked, too - if it weren’t for you meddling kids!
Regards,
Shodan
Holy shit.
I just laughed at something Shodan said for his intended reason.
Today is truly a day of miracles.
Good. I hope he botched it, and took a while to slowly and painfully strangle.
Cite?
Did the SC overturn the entire murder conviction, or just the federal part?
(BTW, thank you for the info on federal murder charges. Most illuminating.)
You appear to have lost the thread somewhere, as there was no death resulting from the actions, and thus, no murder conviction for the SC to overturn.
His name is Juan Ortiz. He is going to fry.
“Assimilated.” … Like Ted Cruz! /barf
Ouch.
(I was just referring to the suggestion that Trump would pardon him, not anything else, and I’m sorry if my post was taken otherwise, as an insult to Mexican Americans.)
Bond v. United States, 134 S.Ct. 2077, 189 L.Ed.2d 1 (2014).
Decision below: United States v. Bond, 681 F.3d 149 (3rd Cir 2012).
Neither. Ms. Haynes did not die. 
I doubt that Trump will pardon him. He has likely gotten bored playing with his newly learned pardon power and has thrown it back into the toy box.