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.
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”.
"Murder" refers to an offense under any number of legal provisions, most of them at the state level. Nearly everyone is at least passingly familiar with at least first-, second-, and—since Chauvin—third-degree murder. Many are also familiar with the concept of felony murder.
Nobody is disputing that the premeditated killing alleged in this case legally constitutes murder under New York State law.
Instead, it does not constitute murder for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(5)(B)(i) because the underlying federal offense—stalking—is not a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3).
That statute defines a crime of violence as one that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another" or "that by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense" (emphasis added).
Physical force is not an element of stalking, nor is there a substantial risk that physical force will be used in the course of stalking, even though it's not altogether uncommon for stalking to lead to acts of violence.
What do you mean here? They usually get prosecuted by the state.
Because NY state law doesn't allow for the death penalty, and the federal government wanted the death penalty, they intentionally moved it to a federal jurisdiction.
There's a Twitter thread[0] that seems like a reasonable explanation.
[0] https://x.com/adamscochran/status/2017284770158485767 / https://xcancel.com/adamscochran/status/2017284770158485767
I find it disgusting
I know. But clearly they can be federally prosecuted and nearly all US crimes take place in an actual state (as opposed to other territories). Just saying that a state can do it is not sufficient to dismiss federal authority over the case. Since the guy conspired to kill a high-profile executive in another state, there seems to be federal standing for that reason (in my non-lawyer opinion). Even if he didn't cross state lines or assassinate such an individual, I think there are many ways the feds can take interest.
The same jurisdictional thing happens with state and local authorities as well, I think. You could be breaking local, state, and federal law at the same time and have 3 levels of authorities and many agencies that could all take you in, resulting in different prosecution. At least that is what I've been led to believe.