He killed, among others a federal judge, and tried to kill a congresswoman. Is this a case of the state saying “we got him first, he killed AZ citizens, he’s ours”?
Or is there some sort of protocol that says the state gets their shot at him first?
It is, and they have.
from here.
Thanks, I guess I missed that…
I was confused because I keep seeing news reporting telling me about Arizona’s insanity defense laws. Which made me wonder why their state laws would matter if there were federal charges.
Related question…
I see that the attorney selected to defend the shooter, and the judge selected to preside over his Federal trail are both San Diego (California) residents. Is this (out of state participants) because a local Fed. judge was a victim or is it a standard practice?
From that same article:
I’m reading that as “All in-state judges may have had contact with John Roll so they may be impartial thus must be recused”
Why exactly the court appointed Judy Clarke as his lawyer I couldn’t say. Perhaps he requested to be assigned the case?
Not all of the shootings will attract federal charges. The shootings of individuals who did not hold any federal office (e.g. - the little 9 year old girl) will be potentially tried under state law.
Here’s a link to the federal criminal complaint against Loughner. There are only 5 counts: 3 counts of attempts to kill the Congresswomen and two of her staff, and 2 counts of killing a federal judge and another of her staff, all in the execution of their duties, which is what gives federal jurisdiction.
Whether Arizona will actually proceed with state criminal charges is a matter for the state authorities. For instance, in the Oklahoma City bombing, the feds prosecuted McVeigh for the deaths of the federal officials in the Murragh building. Oklahoma could have prosecuted him for the deaths of ordinary citizens who did not have any status under federal law, but never proceeded with the charges, since he was tried and executed under the federal charges.
However, if Arizona does proceed with charges, the insanity law in Arizona would presumably come into play.
Is it because it’s a Federal matter that an attorney from California is able to represent an Arizona client in this trial? Would that same attorney be able to represent the defendant in the state trial if it comes to that? Seems would be advantageous for the defendant to have the same attorney for both trials.
Attorneys have to qualify individually for each state bar. I don’t know if this particular public defender has passed the Arizona bar exam. There is a separate federal bar for federal cases and I’m pretty sure that allows one to practice in any federal court.
The FBI took over right away, from what I remember. By the time of the evening news on Saturday they were in charge of the case.
If Laughner asks for a public defender in a state trial, it will be someone from the Arizona public defender system. But if he retains his own counsel, yes, he can use someone from out of state. Attorneys licensed in other jurisdictions can be admitted to the bar in a state by filing a pro hoc vice motion, which is usually a formality.
As for Ms. Clarke, she’s a part of the federal public defender system and will presumably be too busy with other federal cases to represent Laughner on state charges.
Any idea why attending that event was part of a federal judge’s duties?
They may very well move the trial out of state too. McVeigh’s trial for the OKC bombing was moved to Denver.
I wondered about that too, since the media reports indicated that he just dropped by after church to say hello to Ms. Giffords. However, one of the posters in the MPSIMS thread said that some of her staffers said he was talking to her about the case-load in the federal courts in Arizona at the time of the shooting, so I guess the FBI and the U.S. Attorney decided that was enough to qualify for the purposes of the charge.
Seems a bit happenstance to me, so I wonder if it will be upheld at the trial. Maybe our US law dopers could comment.
Apparently driving a Cadillac through a stop sign at 70mph was part of Bill Janklow’s official duties as a congressman, so the bar must be pretty low.
This is a pretty poor answer for GQ.
The actual finding was that WHILE Janklow was engaged in official business as a congressman, he ran a stop sign while speeding.
This presents quite a different picture than saying the speeding and running the stop signs were themselves official duties.
Pretty much. Judge Roll was the Chief Judge of the District, and any federal judge who were to try him there would be a colleague of his.