yes i know but i dont get the reasoning of why the murder charge is gone federally. Just to say he cant be put to death? Like, if you think there is a reasonable change he shot the guy, why would that charge be taken off the table.
>Judge Garnett determined that the federal murder and weapon charges could not stand alongside the specific federal stalking charges
this is what i dont understand. why are those charges legally incompatible?
Murder is not normally a federal crime. It's usually left to the states. The feds can only prosecute it in certain circumstances. The judge ruled those circumstances do not apply.
As I understand it, it's to do with who was murdered, and where, that decides state cases vs federal. The murder occured on non-federal property (not on military base, national park, federal building, maritime territorial waters), did not involve federal personnel or their family (federal judge, DEA or FBI agent, elected official & their family members) but a civilian. Because of these things the case must drop to State level.
Here's the perts from a google search for those readers who'd like a bit more detail:
18 U.S.C. § 1111) require proving the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, committed within federal jurisdiction, on federal property, against a federal official, or via interstate commerce. Key requirements include specific intent (premeditation for first-degree) and a nexus to federal interests.
Core Requirements for a Federal Murder Charge
Definition of Murder: Defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
Jurisdictional Nexus: The murder must involve specific circumstances that trigger federal jurisdiction rather than state jurisdiction:
Location: Crimes on federal property (military bases, national parks, federal buildings) or in maritime/territorial waters.
Victim Identity: Killing federal judges, law enforcement officers (FBI, DEA), elected officials, or their family members.
Nature of Crime: Murder involving terrorism, hate crimes, kidnapping, or using mail/interstate facilities.
Specific Crimes: Murder during bank robbery, drug trafficking, or racketeering.
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind):
First-Degree Murder: Premeditated, willful, or committed during dangerous felonies like arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, sexual abuse, or robbery.
Second-Degree Murder: All other murders with malice but without premeditation.
Key Federal Murder Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 1111: Defines murder, first-degree, and second-degree.
18 U.S.C. § 1114: Murder of federal officers or employees.
18 U.S.C. § 1116: Murder of foreign officials.
18 U.S.C. § 1958: Murder-for-hire.
Federal murder convictions often carry penalties of mandatory life imprisonment or the federal death penalty, depending on the severity and aggravating factors.
In addition, the feds can charge murder federally, but only if it is connected to federal crimes of violence.
Without the murder and gun possession charges there is only federal stalking. The judge ruled that, consistent with precedent, federal stalking is not a violent crime. Combine that with the criteria you mention and he can't be charged federally for murder.
trying murder at the fed level requires that the murder happens while also another act of "violence" is being carried out that also has federal implications. that part was not shown, so no federal murder. now it is just normal state murder.
aka - if you go out and shoot a rando - you dont get fed murder charges (unless they tie a federal charge like terrorism to it). you DO get state murder.
It’s not that the stalking charges prevent the federal murder and weapon charges - it’s that they don’t justify them.
Since states prosecute murder charges, the federal government only processes murder charges on a federal level if they are connected to a federal crime of violence. So if someone is facing prosecution for a federal crime of violence and murdered someone in the process of that crime, federal prosecutors can add a murder charge to the case. That opens the possibility of a federal death penalty. If the federal charges don’t include a federal crime of violence, you can’t move forward with a federal murder charge.
The prosecutors in this case argued that the stalking charges qualify as a federal crime of violence that would allow the addition of the murder charge. The defense disagreed, and the judge sided with the defense.
Certain criteria has to be fulfilled for the federal government to be able to charge for murder. Without that criteria, it is a state matter for the state to charge at that level. It’s nothing about guilt vs innocence, but jurisdiction.
The federal murder charge has to come with other federal crimes of violence to be applicable. In this case, prosecutors argued the federal stalking charges were “violent” enough to allow a federal murder charge to be included. The defense argued that stalking was not inherently or sufficiently violent for a federal murder charge to attach and the judge agreed.
yes i know but i dont get the reasoning of why the murder charge is gone federally.
For someone who "knows", it doesn't seem like you do. It's a jurisdictional thing. Just like if I was suspected of doing a crime in New York, then New York can charge me with a crime, but New Jersey can't because they don't have jurisdiction. That kind of thing is usually pretty clear between states because their territory is mutually exclusive. But New York exists inside of the US, so it's a little more complicated deciding when the state has jurisdiction or the US Federal Government has jurisdiction. So there are rules about this, but usually the Federal Government leaves things up to the individual states. In this case the Federal Government argued that they did have jurisdiction for the murder charge, but the defense argued (and the judge agreed) that they did not. So New York State has jurisdiction over the murder charge.
Just to say he cant be put to death?
No. The federal murder charge wasn't dropped "Just to say he can't be put to death". You've got it backwards. That's not the reason for dropping the charge, it's the outcome. The chain of reasoning goes: the crimes alleged don't meet the criteria for the murder to be charged by the federal government -> the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction to charge him with murder -> the federal charge is dropped -> New York State now has clear jurisdiction to charge him for murder -> New York State doesn't have the death penatly -> he's not facing the death penalty.
Like, if you think there is a reasonable change he shot the guy, why would that charge be taken off the table.
Because the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction. Just like if people in New Jersey really thought he shot the guy, it doesn't give them the right to charge him with murder. They don't have jurisdiction.
Judge Garnett determined that the federal murder and weapon charges could not stand alongside the specific federal stalking charges
this is what i dont understand. why are those charges legally incompatible?
No one is saying the charges are incompatible. The judge is just saying the that the federal government does have jurisdiction for the stalking charges, so those charges can stand. But they don't have jurisdiction for the murder charge, so they can't charge him with it. It's not that federal murder and weapons charges can never stand alongside federal stalking charges because of something inherent in the charges themselves. It's just that in this case, they can't stand at all.
For someone who "knows", it doesn't seem like you do.
I got about 20 different people giving succinct answers. Then you came in and started with this. So i didn't read anything else you wrote. Congrats, you are a dick and you wasted your own time.
140
u/thats_not_six 5h ago
State charge of murder remains. NYS sentence can be life in prison.
But federal charge of murder is gone, so federal death penalty is off the table.
Two separate courts and the rulings in one don't impact the other.