If a Federal crime is serious enough, in some cases, they can seek the death penalty. But, what if the case if tried (in a Federal court) located in a State that does not have the death penalty? What happens then? Does the Federal court overrule the State law, or does the State law stand supreme in this situation?
Federal charges with a death penalty punishment can be sought by the Federal government even in a state that doesn’t have the death penalty if the crime is a violation of Federal law.
Convicted in federal court means sent to a federal prison. If sentenced to death, they’d send the inmate to a federal prison where executions are carried out. I expect they’re only located in states with the death penalty, so there wouldn’t be state grounds to object to execution there.
The only federal prison I’ve visited was a medium security one in Wisconsin, where they don’t do executions, neither in WI nor that particular federal prison.
I believe these days federal executions are carried out exclusively at the prison in Terra Haute, Indiana. And yes, Indiana allows the death penalty for state crimes. However, that doesn’t mean the federal government, subject to whatever statutory provisions Congress might enact, couldn’t conduct executions elsewhere. See, for example, the only person legally executed in the US state of Michigan (Michigan had *abolished the death penalty in the mid-19th century, shortly after statehood, but federal law at the time of the execution required executions to be carried out in the state where they occurred, and federal law won out over the objections of the Governor):
More recently, as a direct answer to the OP’s question, the surviving Boston Marathon bomber was sentenced to death on federal charges in Massachussets, despite Massachussets not being a death penalty state.
*Okay, technically, Michigan allowed the death penalty for treason, and I guess that was enough to satisfy the federal government. Still…
A trail conducted in Federal court, not a state court.
Well of course.
And a Federal court can render a death penalty in any state. For the OP.
Timothy McVeigh was executed here, in Terre Haute, and John Walker Lindh is is the federal prison here (or was-- I have no idea the length of his sentence, parole eligibility, etc.)
Indiana is an interesting state. We have the death penalty, but (excluding federal executions) have carried out only 20 executions since the lifting of the moratorium in 1976. 9 were under a single governor, Mitch Daniels (R). 85% of those executed have been white.
The first execution here after the moratorium was of a guy named Steven Judy, who insisted on it. He waived his appeals, then a religious group tried to appeal on behalf of him, and he sued them, and it was all very complicated. I was 13 when it was going on, 14 when he was ultimately electrocuted in 1981. I follows the case with interest.
The most recent execution here, again, excluding the federal ones, was in 2009.
It was amusing to me when the show The Good Wife wanted to do a story about the death penalty, which Illinois, where the show was set, does not have, so they’d hop over the border to Indiana. The writers must have assumed that any state with the death penalty was as bloodthirsty as Texas. There were two or three Hoosier executions during the run of the show, which was 2009-2016. I’m pretty sure none of the cases the lawyers worked were federal cases.
Oh-- just another detail-- there have been 16 executions in Terre Haute since 1976.
Within each state, you are standing in two jurisdictions (that is, places where a government has power over you). One is the state’s jurisdiction (which is often subdivided by the state, so you are in the state, but also in a city or town and a county or borough or parish), but the other is the federal (i.e. United States - those guys in Washington) jurisdiction.
Most criminal laws are enforced at the state level, but when you are being tried for a federal crime in a federal court you aren’t, legally, in the “state”; instead, you are in the “United States”. It’s a separate entity with its own laws.
(The same concept applies, by the way, to federally owned areas within states, such as federal parks, Indian reservations, and - perhaps surprisingly- post offices.
However, I should add that there can be “concurrent” jurisdiction, where both state and federal laws may apply at the same time)