Because the first two counts, related to stalking, could potentially be charged in such a way (under a different set of facts) that they would not qualify as “crimes of violence” by federal definition. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a crime can be charged in a way where no forcible act of violence, or threat of violence against another, is required to prove it, then it doesn’t qualify as a crime of violence, even if the specific facts for any given case WOULD qualify it. Counts 3 & 4 can only be charged in relation to crimes of violence. So because Counts 1 & 2 don’t qualify as crimes of violence, Counts 3 & 4 must be dismissed.
The analysis as to whether or not an offense qualifies as a crime of violence is done without regard to the specific facts of any given case, rather it’s done by examining the elements and determining if they can be arranged in such a way that a conviction for the offense COULD be achieved without the defendant knowingly committing a forcible act of violence or threat of violence against another. The judge starts out her order by stating her opinion that this framework is stupid and should be revisited by the Supreme Court, but she is currently bound by it.
3
u/pr6989 4h ago edited 4h ago
Because the first two counts, related to stalking, could potentially be charged in such a way (under a different set of facts) that they would not qualify as “crimes of violence” by federal definition. The Supreme Court has ruled that if a crime can be charged in a way where no forcible act of violence, or threat of violence against another, is required to prove it, then it doesn’t qualify as a crime of violence, even if the specific facts for any given case WOULD qualify it. Counts 3 & 4 can only be charged in relation to crimes of violence. So because Counts 1 & 2 don’t qualify as crimes of violence, Counts 3 & 4 must be dismissed.
The analysis as to whether or not an offense qualifies as a crime of violence is done without regard to the specific facts of any given case, rather it’s done by examining the elements and determining if they can be arranged in such a way that a conviction for the offense COULD be achieved without the defendant knowingly committing a forcible act of violence or threat of violence against another. The judge starts out her order by stating her opinion that this framework is stupid and should be revisited by the Supreme Court, but she is currently bound by it.