Crim law folks, please weigh in

S

superrific

Master of the ZZLverse
Messages
11,459
Why doesn't the state now have enough evidence to indict and convict the ICE shooter? What could the FBI be hiding that the state needs. There are tons of eyewitnesses. There's video. The shooter himself released his own video, which can be easily authenticated and admitted.

Why are they saying that they can't indict? I'm just not sure what's missing. That said, I've prosecuted zero cases and defended zero cases so I don't know the guts of a prosecution, but it still seems cut and dried here.
 
superrific said:
Why doesn't the state now have enough evidence to indict and convict the ICE shooter? What could the FBI be hiding that the state needs. There are tons of eyewitnesses. There's video. The shooter himself released his own video, which can be easily authenticated and admitted.

Why are they saying that they can't indict? I'm just not sure what's missing. That said, I've prosecuted zero cases and defended zero cases so I don't know the guts of a prosecution, but it still seems cut and dried here.
Click to expand...
I am a film major but my guess is that they can’t indict and convict the ICE shooter because between them and doing that is the President of the United States and the full weight of the federal government.
 
Rock said:
I am a film major but my guess is that they can’t indict and convict the ICE shooter because between them and doing that is the President of the United States and the full weight of the federal government.
Click to expand...
That's not really an answer.
 
Because the question is what does the state of Minnesota need to prosecute that they can't get (or already have)? Trump has no power to intervene. To say that Trump won't let it happen is precisely the question -- how would he stop it? Why can't it proceed. This is something of a technical question.
 
superrific said:
Because the question is what does the state of Minnesota need to prosecute that they can't get (or already have)? Trump has no power to intervene. To say that Trump won't let it happen is precisely the question -- how would he stop it? Why can't it proceed. This is something of a technical question.
Click to expand...
They can’t even conduct an investigation because ICE/the FBI are preventing them. They are going to prosecute someone without an investigation?
 
Rock said:
They can’t even conduct an investigation because ICE/the FBI are preventing them. They are going to prosecute someone without an investigation?
Click to expand...
They don't need an investigation if they have all the evidence they need to prosecute. If someone walks into a police station, signs a confession about a crime, no detailed investigation is needed. Just a confirmation of the facts claimed.

And the state isn't prevented from doing an investigation, as far as I know. It's just that the FBI has evidence one would normally want.
 
superrific said:
They don't need an investigation if they have all the evidence they need to prosecute. If someone walks into a police station, signs a confession about a crime, no detailed investigation is needed. Just a confirmation of the facts claimed.

And the state isn't prevented from doing an investigation, as far as I know. It's just that the FBI has evidence one would normally want.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that you are exceptionally over simplifying the situation.
 
superrific said:
Why doesn't the state now have enough evidence to indict and convict the ICE shooter? What could the FBI be hiding that the state needs. There are tons of eyewitnesses. There's video. The shooter himself released his own video, which can be easily authenticated and admitted.

Why are they saying that they can't indict? I'm just not sure what's missing. That said, I've prosecuted zero cases and defended zero cases so I don't know the guts of a prosecution, but it still seems cut and dried here.
Click to expand...
I am a criminal lawyer but I don’t know of a definite answer. I do think one issue is that the Feds seem to be obstructing the investigation. While the video may seem like enough, I’ve never seen a serious felony prosecuted simply on a video without additional investigation. I also don’t know what, if any, jurisdictional issues there may be due to the unique circumstances. I have never before seen a federal agent prosecuted in state court for something he or she did while on duty. But I think that probably has more to do with this being unprecedented in terms of a federal agent being caught in such an act and the federal government actually condoning it.
 
@Rock I understand what you're saying but Trump couldn't circumvent state law in Colorado to get Tina Peters out of jail so I think Super has a point.
 
dukeman92 said:
@Rock I understand what you're saying but Trump couldn't circumvent state law in Colorado to get Tina Peters out of jail so I think Super has a point.
Click to expand...
That’s fair. The differentiation would be that it’s already happened/it would be too insane to send the Navy SEALS in to extract her which I’m sure he would love to do.

My point being, there is an absolutely enormous political component to this. It’s a who watches the watchmen situation.
 
Rock said:
That’s fair. The differentiation would be that it’s already happened/it would be too insane to send the Navy SEALS in to extract her which I’m sure he would love to do.

My point being, there is an absolutely enormous political component to this. It’s a who watches the watchmen situation.
Click to expand...

Valid point and you're right. They will never relent and allow this dude to be prosecuted. On the other hand, how will he ever be able to live a normal life? He will be harassed until he dies.
 
Icky Mettle said:
I am a criminal lawyer but I don’t know of a definite answer. I do think one issue is that the Feds seem to be obstructing the investigation. While the video may seem like enough, I’ve never seen a serious felony prosecuted simply on a video without additional investigation. I also don’t know what, if any, jurisdictional issues there may be due to the unique circumstances. I have never before seen a federal agent prosecuted in state court for something he or she did while on duty. But I think that probably has more to do with this being unprecedented in terms of a federal agent being caught in such an act and the federal government actually condoning it.
Click to expand...
Ruby Ridge was investigated for almost a decade....one FBI agent pled guilty in 1996 to obstruction...others were 'internally disciplined'. Various investigations went on until 2001 - the incident occurred in 1992. This was all federal...not state and also very different circumstances. Point being, investigations will probably go on for a decade.

 
NCK9 said:
Ruby Ridge was investigated for almost a decade....one FBI agent pled guilty in 1996 to obstruction...others were 'internally disciplined'. Various investigations went on until 2001 - the incident occurred in 1992. This was all federal...not state and also very different circumstances. Point being, investigations will probably go on for a decade.

Click to expand...
Ruby Ridge was nothing like this. I'm just trying to figure out what an "investigation" would accomplish here when we seemingly have all the evidence in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top