Prosecuting Nixon on state charges

Factual Questions
1

There was a recent thread on presidential pardons and mention was made of one of the most well-kown; Ford’s pardon Nixon. And somebody else mentioned that presidential pardons only covered federal offenses. Which led me to wonder; was there ever any discussion of charging Nixon under any state laws? Considering the wide scope of the alleged criminal acts Nixon was involved in, I have to feel that some state attorney general could have made a case for him having broken some state law. And I can imagine some local DA deciding to go Jim Garrison and going after the big crime that the feds weren’t willing to go for. Or at the very least, I can see there would have been a call for such a prosecution - a lot of people at the time were really angry that Nixon was allowed to go free.

But I don’t recall any discussion of such an idea. Was it something I’ve forgotten or did it not happen?

2

Giving this a bump because I’m also interested in the question but have nothing to contribute.

3

But what state would have had territorial jurisdiction, or subject-matter jurisdiction? And, what did Nixon do personally that was a breach of state law?

Take the Watergate break-in itself - it occurred in the District of Columbia, over which the U.S. Congress has exclusive legislative jurisdiction: U. S. Constitution, Article I, s. 8. So a crime such as burglary in the District, or conspiring to commit burglary in the District, is solely a matter of federal law. No state would have territorial jurisdiction.

Then, the matter snowballed into cover-ups, and money payments. But the cover-ups related to the proceedings in the U.S. courts for the District, and again, state laws wouldn’t apply.

The wire transfers of money that occurred to fund various activities, such as dirty tricks on the election trail or as hush money? Wire transfers are interstate commerce and covered by federal laws.

And then there’s the whole issue of how much Nixon personally knew, which would be essential to try to charge him. The more removed actions were from him personally, like dirty tricks on the election trail, carried out by low-level operatives, the more difficult it would be to make a case that he had committed an offence under state law.

After all, what really forced his resignation was the tapes of him involved in the cover-up, in Washington, of the various investigations under federal law.

I’m not saying it would have been impossible for a state police/prosecutor team to investigate for possible offences, by some of his operatives - just that it’s hard to see how Nixon personally could be shown to have been involved in a breach of state law.

4

What Northern Piper said.

And see this previous thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=464103

5

Some of the lower-level Watergate conspirators were prosecuted by the state of California for breaking into Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiartist’s (Dr. Fielding’s) office. There was actually a bit of interesting legal trivia associated with that charge; they were charged with burglary, which at the time California defined as breaking and entering into a residence with intent to commit a crime therein. Since the building also contained residences, that element was satisfied, but Liddy’s lawyers raised the point that photographing documents (which was what the prosecution conceded they planned to do) was not a crime. There was apparently some speculation about trying to prove that they stole some of Dr. Fielding’s electricity by turning on lights when they were inside.

Ultimately, the individuals involved were convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice.