Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I suppose it also depends on what sort of evidence is available. The evidence seems to be there on the state charges (but of course it has yet to be tested in court). If the federal law requires more evidence that possibly may not be there or may not be admissible then it makes sense to go for the state charges which may have the preponderance of evidence.
I don't know how double jeopardly rules work in the States but here a court would not allow federal and state charges to be preferred against a defendant on the same set of facts. Apart from the jurisdiction issue the High Court of Australia has ruled on this sort of thing and will not countenance it. You make your mind up and go with what you have.
The people on the sidelines trying to make poltitical gain out of this should shut their traps.
Unfortunately for us the feds can charge you with a different charge on the same crime. But the point is they haven't much of a case, Federal Hate laws are specific and she doesn't appear to easily fit any of them. The State probably can not bring it as a seperate charge, one or the other type deal. And again it all hinges on convincing a jury that the only reason she was kidnapped raped beaten and harmed was cause she was black.
BUT more importantly is the fact they get them for life and or 35 years on the other charges which are much easier to prove, hate crime is just 10 years max.
They seem to have some bizarre idea that because the victim knew one of the attackers, that there can't be a hate crime. I think that's absurd, personally. I suspect (though I can't prove) that it has more to do with Bush's justice department determination not to enforce laws having to do with discrimination.
Sure thing. As I read it, it is NOT the Feds that have a problem with her knowing them, it is the State, but hey what ever political hay you can make up.
I thought it was the feds, too. I've been known to be wrong on the odd occasion.
The US Attorney kept pointing out that Federal hate laws are specific and he wasn't sure she met the criteria under existing laws, The State Attorney as I understood it was the one saying that her relationship made it hard to justify a hate crime.
The feds can wait till the State trial occurs and go ahead with a seperate Federal crime if they want. It is not double jeapordy under our system. Though there may be a time limit on the hate charge.
