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
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".

>>fhdkwe+Vh
it's not double jeopardy because they are being tried for different crimes at each court. splitting up trials is not uncommon. not just because of jurisdiction.