That makes more sense. In the website, it mentioned that some crimes overlap. How do they decide who gets to prosecute?
The prosecutors and law enforcement officials work it out among themselves. They need to balance several priorities at once. Likelihood of conviction in a given jurisdiction is usually the biggest one but they may also need to balance that with the potential sentence in each jurisdiction (in general, more certain and tougher sentence = better in this context).
For example, they probably don’t want to prosecute a longtime criminal for federal mail fraud if they almost certainly put him away for life for running a child pornography ring in Alabama for example. They want to prosecute those in the right order to make sure he goes to the worst prison possible for the longest time possible.
Federal mail fraud and tax evasion charges are one very broad tool that the feds have if no one can get any decent state level convictions. Al Capone, the Chicago crime boss for example, was really tough to nail for any specific crimes in Illinois because he ran a tight ship but the IRS was able to show that he obviously had much more money than he paid taxes on. That is a federal crime and got him sent to Alcatraz for a while (but not for life like he would have gotten otherwise if he received the relevant state level convictions). However, there isn’t anything special about state versus federal orders of priority for prosecutions other than those broad but generally less severe penalties the feds can use as a last-ditch effort if no state can successfully prosecute for the more direct crimes.
It happens between states commonly. If you kill several people in a robbery spree in Louisiana, flee to Arkansas and do the same and then flee to Florida to hide and support yourself by burglarizing houses, none of that is a federal crime. It is just a string of individual state crimes and they will compete for prosecution priority between the states involved and even within the same state if there were multiple crimes committed in a given one. Louisiana, Arkansas and Florida will have to work out which charges they want to pursue and in what order. They will generally pick the surest conviction first that will result in either the death penalty or a true lifetime sentence so that they may never have to bother with prosecuting the rest of them. If the first one fails they will have backups and the process will have to state all over with a formal extradition process just like happens between countries because states still operate like semi-independent countries in many ways.
Nope. If an act breaks both Federal and state law, you can be tried by the federal government as well as any state where a defined crime occurred, under the doctrine of Separate Sovereigns.
Double jeopardy is widely misunderstood. That link touches on the case of Timothy Hennis, who was acquitted of murder in North Carolina, then tried and found guilty by the Army. However, as also noted in the article, the Federal Government has a policy dictating that not every case will be dually prosecuted.
This is exactly what happened in the DC Beltway Sniper case. Charges were filed in Maryland, D.C., and Virginia (and possibly federal ones). Well, D.C. doesn’t have a death penalty and Maryland has an impotent one. The feds also aren’t very good about executing people very promptly. But Virginia! Hell, they line 'em up and give them a lethal injection in good time. So Mohammed and Malvo were tried in Virginia. Malvo got life without parole, but Mohammed was sentenced to death and executed several years ago.
Theoretically, both the federal government and the state could prosecute – and this is allowed by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
In practice, the US Attorney’s office will coordinate with the state prosecutor and they’ll decide who has the best charge to bring. There are times when a state has a more restrictive evidentiary rule, and some piece of evidence inadmissible against the accused in state court might be usable in federal court, and that might play into the decision.
Kidnapping was a state crime, too, until 1947, It was the public emotional response to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping that led to Congress passing a law making kidnapping a Federal crime. (There had also been quite a few kidnappings of rich, powerful people for ransom.)
The Constitutional excuse was that kidnappers crossed state lines to make it difficult for state authorities to prosecute them (which was often true at that time). But I believe the law applies whether they cross state lines or not.
Note that despite passing this law, most prosecutions are still in state courts, not federal ones. But the law allows the FBI to use its’ resources to investigate any kidnapping. But prosecution of the kidnappers once caught might be either state or federal.
The Federal Kidnapping Act (AKA the Lindbergh Law) allows the federal government to pursue kidnappers once state lines have been crossed. The law does not supersede or supplant state kidnapping laws.
Another important thing about federalism: states have different laws from each other. For example, California has different definitions of the different degrees of murder and manslaughter than, say, Montana does. Something that’s a crime in one state may be legal in another.
Federalism doesn’t just affect criminal law. Each state also has its own set of laws affecting civil procedures, taxation, contracts, etc. There are a few things that the federal constitution prohibits states from doing, including coining money and entering into treaties. States are also prohibited from abridging the rights guaranteed by the federal constitution. Other than that, a state can pretty much pass and enforce any laws its legislature can think up.
The building McVeigh blew up, the Alfred P. Murrah building, was a federal building, so what he did was a federal crime. He committed several other lesser crimes that allowed the Oklahoma police to arrest and detain him, though.
Statute of limitations is a considerations too. If someone is guilty of both racketeering and murder, and the racketeering is a slam dunk, but has a statute of limitations, while the murder case may have poorer evidence, but no statute of limitations, the various prosecutors may decide to try the criminal on racketeering, which violates the federal RICO law, and while he is in prison, build the murder case, then as soon as his sentence is over for racketeering, try him for murder. If there happens to be DNA evidence, there is a good chance for a conviction even well after the fact, and obtaining DNA evidence will be easier once the criminal is convicted, because he can be forced to submit a sample.
If he were tried for murder first, and convicted, then immediately for racketeering, he might end up serving the sentences concurrently instead of consecutively. If the murder is not first degree, or is in a non-death penalty state, it may well be in the interests of a coalition to get him consecutive terms, so he will spend the longest time incarcerated.
From here: Timothy McVeigh - Wikipedia
Just because the bombing was in a Federal building, not all of the murder charges were Federal. People on the street or there on regular business (or the day care in the building) were covered under Oklahoma murder charges.
There were only five people killed in the OKC bombing “on the street” (i.e., not in the Alfred P. Murrah Building): one in the parking lot, three in neighboring buildings, and one first responder. I wouldn’t put too much stock in that Wikipedia article. The source it cites does not say what the article says, and it would be wrong if it did. The remaining 163 deaths would have been federal crimes simply because they happened in a federal building (18 U.S.C. § 930). However, the government had not asserted jurisdiction over the Murrah building under 40 U.S.C. § 255. The latter statute basically says the federal government must explicitly say it is going to exercise criminal jurisdiction over federal property acquired after 1940.
Great post. I learned something new!
(Or was reminded of something I once knew but forgot so thoroughly that I didn’t even remember knowing it after hearing it again.)
More, then: if a local force wants help with an investigation, they may request FBI help, but the FBI may not insert itself into an investigation unless it is clearly multi-jurisdictional, or one of the few crimes that is FBI “territory,” like a ransom kidnapping.
And the sovereignty, at first just ghostly, turned a whiter shade of pale!
I get what you’re saying, but saying it without a lot of qualification is flat-out wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment says so:
So Statesota can’t pass a Fuck Those Guys Law, where Those Guys are a group of American citizens due the privileges and immunities of citizens of the country as a whole, not just the privileges and immunities the obviously insane government of Statesota decides to recognize them as having.
That is not only a Federal limit on the ability of the several states to pass (and keep) laws, it is one of the Federal limits. Combine that, the concept of “incorporation” of Amendments such that they bind on states, the Commerce Clause, and a few decades, and you get the happy conclusion where Jim Crow no longer jumps as high or casts as long a shadow. You also get the conclusion where state sovereignty is somewhere between a bureaucratic annoyance and a polite legal fiction, with just enough bite left to it that this latest marriage equality battle might last all the way into the 2030s if a few key decisions actually start going the GOP’s way.
How is murder considered a Civil Rights Act violation? Just seems really strange to me to lump murder under that law. Is anything else covered such as attempted murder?
Unless they suspect you of growing pot, or making drugs, The they can take all your stuff without even an indictment, and you have to sue to get it back.
Murder isn’t a violation of the Civil Rights Act per se. But you can violate a person’s civil rights by murdering them.
If the purpose of the killing is to prevent people from exercising their civil rights, then it is a civil rights violation.
For example, if an activist is trying to organise a minority group to register to vote, and the activist is killed and strung up in the community to warn the community not to try to vote, then the killing is a civil rights violation. It’s the purpose of the killing that does it.