# What federal crimes could the Boston bomber face? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 19, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146 "2013-04-19T16:43:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/21 "2013-04-22T16:47:13Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > That is a justification to render a federal statute constitutional. Not quite the same thing as establishing the supremacy of federal jurisdiction in a criminal case. Otherwise the feds would have jurisdiction over all criminal law. Straight from the U.S. Dept of Justice [Making Federal Case out of a Death Investigation](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab6001.pdf) (PDF link) > [@](#): > > If a defendant uses interstate commerce facilities or causes another to travel in interstate commerce in order to kill the other person (the murder-for-hire statute), it becomes a federal offense. 18 U.S.C. § 1958 (2010). OR See _United States v.Williams_ 308 F.3d 833, 839 (8th Cir. 2002) The victim, an independent taxicab driver was robbed. The victim took people and packages traveling in interstate commerce to the airport. That was enough to provide federal jurisdiction. But there are limits… one prosecutor tried to argue that the US currency stolen during a robbery was printed in another state and thus the robbery had an interstate nexus. The courts considered that to be too far a reach. In the case of the Boston bomber, the federal government can easily take jurisdiction by virtue of 18 U.S.C. § 844 which provides “An arson or unlawful handling of an explosive” falls under federal jurisdiction. There are other possibilities (terrorist attack or carjacking count) to bring it under federal jurisdiction. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/22 "2013-04-22T16:48:25Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > That is a justification to render a federal statute constitutional. Not quite the same thing as establishing the supremacy of federal jurisdiction in a criminal case. Otherwise the feds would have jurisdiction over all criminal law. Huh? There is no “supremacy of federal jurisdiction” in a criminal case. Enforcement of federal criminal law is separate and apart from enforcement of state criminal law. Congress can specify whether or not there will be a parallel federal prosecution for any given type of crime. [ > [@](#): > > Although there is no general statutory bar to a federal prosecution where the defendant’s conduct already has formed the basis for a state prosecution, Congress expressly has provided that, as to certain offenses, a state judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 659, 660, 1992, 2101, 2117; see also 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a-36, 1282. ]([http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia\_reading\_room/usam/title9/2mcrm.htm](http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/2mcrm.htm)) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/23 "2013-04-22T17:19:02Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Surely merely having an impact on interstate commerce is insufficient to establish a federal crime. If I murder a long-haul trucker at a truckstop in St. Louis I might affect the shipping of goods traveling from one coast to the other, but I’m still just going to be charged with murder in Missouri under state law. **Gorsnak** , you’re thinking like a Canadian there! (Canadian courts have given a much narrower interpretation to our federal commerce clause.) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/24 "2013-04-22T17:26:47Z")
> [@robert\_columbia](#): > > The area is on lockdown. It’s blatantly obvious that interstate or foreign commerce has been affected. Businesses that aren’t running aren’t engaging in interstate or foreign commerce that they otherwise would have. There’s going to be at least one person who was going to travel in or out of Boston today who isn’t going to because of the events, and it’s likely that there will be some people who would have traveled interstate or internationally who now won’t because they are afraid. If even _one_ interstate Amtrak train got cancelled that had at least one tourist or business traveler on it you got your affect right there. I don’t necessarily disagree with you from past SCOTUS precedent, but wouldn’t this view make every murder, or even every jaywalking citation subject to federal jurisdiction? I jaywalked, someone swerved to miss me, crashing into an apartment complex, making the tenants of the apartment less (or more) likely to leave their home that day to engage in commerce, thereby affecting the interstate market for the goods they bought/didn’t buy, etc. That seems to be the argument that us strict constructionists always raise. And I believe that Lopez and Morrison hold to the fact that the activity engaged in must be economic in nature by itself. Growing marijuana as in Raich is economic. “One step removed” from economic was struck down in Lopez and Morrison. Bombing a city street seems to be “one step removed.” ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/25 "2013-04-22T17:43:41Z")
You strict constructionists need a 10th Amendment that actually works. Maybe something like s. 92 of Canada’s _Constitution Act, 1867_: [http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html#h-19](http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-4.html#h-19) 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/26 "2013-04-22T17:59:14Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **Gorsnak** , you’re thinking like a Canadian there! Of all the dastardly things to accuse me of!! ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/27 "2013-04-22T18:50:40Z")
A friend was on a federal grand jury. When you have Fed GJ duty, you participate for two days each month, for a year or two. My friend said that all the cases they reviewed were guns or drugs. The gun cases were established as federal because the gun had crossed a state line at least once between being manufactured and where it was found (used in some crime, usually). It seems pretty thin as a basis for “interstate trade” justification for gun crimes that otherwise had nothing to do with interstate trade, but it was well-established by precedent, and that’s how it works, in the US today. The federal law prohibiting “partial birth abortions” is predicated on the interstate trade basis. No idea why that applies, and there isn’t any explanation of that in the law, just the bare statement. It’s the excuse used by anyone to get a federal law that doesn’t really have a real justification under the Constitution. It annoys me that anyone would call an IED a “weapon of mass destruction”. That term applies to things like nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, which are considerably more destructive than an IED. If we allow an IED to be called that, then so is a hand grenade. The term “WMD” loses its usefulness, and ends up meaning “any weapon that can kill more than one person at a time.” I don’t have any problem with this being a Federal case, but it’s silly to use the WMD clause. Let’s just trot out that old workhorse, interstate trade. It won’t be tarnished any futher by the additional abuse. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/28 "2013-04-22T19:14:15Z")
3 dead and over 140 injured, some seriously, plus extensive property damage. That sounds pretty “mass destruction” to me. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/29 "2013-04-22T19:25:35Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > 3 dead and over 140 injured, some seriously, plus extensive property damage. That sounds pretty “mass destruction” to me. But by those standards very ordinary military weapons such as claymores or rocket-propelled grenades are also WMD’s. It makes the term pretty much meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![magnusblitz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@magnusblitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magnusblitz)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/30 "2013-04-22T19:49:47Z")
My Fed Criminal Law prof wasn’t the greatest, and it’s been a few years, but looking through my notes, he could get a life sentence for a violation of the Travel Act (18 USC section 1952) alone, if they can show that he traveled in interstate commerce or used a facility in interstate commerce (the Internet?). 18 USC 922© adds a 10 year enhancement for discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. There’s also a provision in there that if the firearm is a “destructive device” it’s 30 years. Under _SCarborough v. U.S._ it seems all that’s needed for federal jurisdiction is that the firearm traveled through interstate commerce at some point, ever. Probably also could get him with racketeering under 18 USC 1961 and 1962© or (d). ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/31 "2013-04-23T14:36:23Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > That is a justification to render a federal statute constitutional. Not quite the same thing as establishing the supremacy of federal jurisdiction in a criminal case. Otherwise the feds would have jurisdiction over all criminal law. Quoting from Brecht, 507 US 619; …We have also spoken of comity and federalism. “The States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law”… Congressional criminal law is limited in scope, generally there is a crossover already of a state criminal law. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/32 "2013-04-23T14:38:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I don’t necessarily disagree with you from past SCOTUS precedent, but wouldn’t this view make every murder, or even every jaywalking citation subject to federal jurisdiction? > > I jaywalked, someone swerved to miss me, crashing into an apartment complex, making the tenants of the apartment less (or more) likely to leave their home that day to engage in commerce, thereby affecting the interstate market for the goods they bought/didn’t buy, etc. Theoretically, yes, but Congress isn’t interested in asserting federal jurisdiction over all crimes. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/33 "2013-04-23T16:58:21Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > But by those standards very ordinary military weapons such as claymores or rocket-propelled grenades are also WMD’s. It makes the term pretty much meaningless. Not really, military level ordinance is designed to do the maximum amount of damage for the smallest charge. It is by definition a weapon of mass destruction, in fact its pretty much required to be or the Pentagon tells the supplier to make a better one that kills more efficiently. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/34 "2013-04-23T22:02:55Z")
I think it’s the time element that is significant: 3 dead, over 240 injured, and 10 amputations - in under 15 seconds, with no warning, no way for people to escape. No way you could do that with a claymore. Could you do it with one or two RPG’s? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146/35 "2013-04-23T23:15:55Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > It annoys me that anyone would call an IED a “weapon of mass destruction”. That term applies to things like nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, which are considerably more destructive than an IED. If we allow an IED to be called that, then so is a hand grenade. The term “WMD” loses its usefulness, and ends up meaning “any weapon that can kill more than one person at a time.” When was the law that explicitly lists bombs (and grenades) as WMDs written? Maybe it has nothing to do with the political term. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-federal-crimes-could-the-boston-bomber-face/656146.md?page=1)