zlacker

>>Qem+(OP)
The 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.

>>rahimn+xc
> 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”.