alt Hacker NewsThe article doesn't explain clearly why, even though no one seems to be disputing the murder, the murder charge is being dismissed.
It's because of jurisdiction.
Normally, only states have jurisdiction over murders. The feds can charge murder if and only if the murder is connected to some other federal "crime of violence" (e.g. killing a federal official, murder-for-hire across state lines).
Here, the federal 'hook' was interstate stalking. But the federal stalking crime apparently isn't a "crime of violence" because you can stalk without intentional force.
Because the stalking charges don't legally qualify as "crimes of violence", the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the alleged murder.
Replies
While I can't name any specific case, I seem to recall a true crime involving two separate trials, one for federal charges and one for state charges. The person was acquitted of one and was then tried for the other. Somehow, this doesn't count as double jeopardy. It felt morally wrong to do so, but apparently legal. It is called "dual sovereignty doctrine".
How about premeditated murder? Stalking is part of the premeditation, presumably. I think this technical argument/decision reeks of politics. Nearly all US murders take place in some state or another so they need to have federal prosecution potential.
> The article doesn't explain clearly why, even though no one seems to be disputing the murder, the murder charge is being dismissed.
I mean, its literally being dismissed because the defendant successfully disputed the murder (as even a valid charge under the prosecutors own allegations.) He also, in the parallel state case which does not rely on the much narrower federal murder statute used in the federal case, is disputing the alleged murder as a matter of fact.
So, it is inaccurate to say “no one is disputing the murder”.
[dead]
The term “crime of violence,” used in a number of federal criminal statutes, is notoriously unclear and subject to a lot of litigation: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45220 (“Since the CCCA's enactment, reviewing courts have had to interpret and apply the statutory definition of a crime of violence, sometimes reaching disparate conclusions over the scope of that term.”).