Jared Loughner charges: what about the other shooting victims?

[Nursefoxfire]

I tried reading that 41 page thread on the Gifford shooting, but didn't see this addressed anywhere. Please excuse me for bringing this up in a separate thread, but I believe it's only a tangential question. (Also, Deeptrax seems to have infected and derailed that thread quite effectively, and I didn't want to get lost in the static).

Here is a list of the charges:

Loughner is charged with one count of attempted assassination of a member of Congress, two counts of killing an employee of the federal government and two counts of attempting to kill a federal employee.

My question is: Why hasn't he been charged with the murder (and attempted murder) of the other non-governmental citizens, like the little girl? I will assume that the prosecutors know what they're doing, but what's the strategy here, legally?

 

[Katopale]

I may be wrong, but I think those are the Federal charges. State charges may well be coming.

 

[Ladewig]

He has been charged specifically with those particular crimes because those are federal crimes and he is being held in a federal facility. The state of Arizona can choose to file charges on behalf of the other victims at any point it chooses. A lawyer can elaborate on the possible advantages to delaying the filing of charges.

 

[Checkmite]

Those are likely just the Federal charges - the ones he'll be facing in Federal court. The other murders and woundings would be charged and tried at the state level I should think.

 

[WildCat]

I may be wrong, but I think those are the Federal charges. State charges may well be coming.

I think you are right on.

Simple murder/shooting isn't a federal crime, it's a state crime. So the feds prosecute the Congresswoman's shooting, the state will prosecute the charges relating to the other victims.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

Ah! now I feel silly, thanks

It's just, not one news report I've heard has mentioned, after talking about his charges, that there may be more to come on the state level. So my brain kept screaming, "What about the death of the little girl!?!"

 

[BenBurch]

In any case, state charges will be filed and then will be held in abeyance until the federal charges are dealt with.

 

[The Don]

"What about the death of the little girl!?!"

In the interests of polemics, should the death of a child attract a greater punishment than the death of an adult ?

In fact, given that a child has no dependants, should the punishment for killing a child be less than that for killing an adult with dependants ?


For my part, all people killed in the same circumstances (whether 8 or 80) should attract the same penalty.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He has been charged specifically with those particular crimes because those are federal crimes and he is being held in a federal facility. The state of Arizona can choose to file charges on behalf of the other victims at any point it chooses. A lawyer can elaborate on the possible advantages to delaying the filing of charges.

The State saves money.

In addition, it gives you a backup plan. If a guy murders 6 people, and you charge him with all 6, if you get a stupid jury (see: OJ) who for some reason decides to "send a message" and find him not guilty, you are done.

If you charge him with only one murder, and the jury does as above, it's no big deal. You just charge him with the next one in front of a new jury.

 

[Ladewig]

In the interests of polemics, should the death of a child attract a greater punishment than the death of an adult ?

In fact, given that a child has no dependants, should the punishment for killing a child be less than that for killing an adult with dependants ?


For my part, all people killed in the same circumstances (whether 8 or 80) should attract the same penalty.

I've gone back and forth on this issue, but I can see why certain murders should have stiffer penalties. It is possible that he was shooting at the congresswoman in an effort to subvert the foundation of our country (i.e rule of law constructed and enforced by duly elected officials in free and open elections) or that he was hoping to terrorize other congressfolk by this murder. If he shot the the child simply because she ran between him and his target then, of course he should be charged with first degree murder of the child, but the punishment for that might be less than the punishments for the previously described crimes. On the other hand, I am not willing to fall on my sword defending this particular instance of the issue.

Both the federal charges in the opening post and upcoming state charges carry the possibility of the death penalty.

 

[Nursefoxfire]

In the interests of polemics, should the death of a child attract a greater punishment than the death of an adult ?

In fact, given that a child has no dependants, should the punishment for killing a child be less than that for killing an adult with dependants ?


For my part, all people killed in the same circumstances (whether 8 or 80) should attract the same penalty.

Oh, I totally agree with you. It's just, there was an emotional voice in my head that probably sounded like Rev. Lovejoy's wife ("Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!"), so that's where my thoughts went first. Probably has something to do with being a parent to a cute little guy. it's a knee-jerk reaction.

 

[Ladewig]

The State saves money.

In addition, it gives you a backup plan. If a guy murders 6 people, and you charge him with all 6, if you get a stupid jury (see: OJ) who for some reason decides to "send a message" and find him not guilty, you are done.

If you charge him with only one murder, and the jury does as above, it's no big deal. You just charge him with the next one in front of a new jury.

I was also going to add that the if the federal investigation turns up crucial evidence that is thrown out at the last minute - resulting in acquittal; the state of Arizona can then launch a new investigation and produce other evidence necessary to get a conviction. But I was basing this supposition on watching too much Law & Order rather than knowledge of the criminal justice system.

 

[LTC8K6]

That Sheriff may have complicated state charges with his many comments to the media.

 

[BenBurch]

That Sheriff may have complicated state charges with his many comments to the media.

No, As long as the evidence was collected appropriately, he can say anything he wants. Only issue would be jury selection, and that is not insurmountable at all.

 

[Fnord]

... Why hasn't he been charged with the murder (and attempted murder) of the other non-governmental citizens, like the little girl? I will assume that the prosecutors know what they're doing, but what's the strategy here, legally?

There is a legalistic strategy that goes something like, "Let's file the charges for which we have the most comprehensive evidence now, and hold off on the rest in case the initial charges get tossed out on a technicality."

Of course, there are the separate cases under each of the Federal, State, and local jurisdictions to consider, as well. Eventually, even Tuscon may get around to filing charges of "Disorderly Conduct" and "Unlawful Discharge of a Firearm".

 

[Beerina]

My question is: Why hasn't he been charged with the murder (and attempted murder) of the other non-governmental citizens, like the little girl? I will assume that the prosecutors know what they're doing, but what's the strategy here, legally?

As others have said already, those are the federal charges.

Generally and historically speaking, murder is a state-level crime. The Feds added assassination or attempted at such (or even threatening to do so) of federal officials in more recent years to give them something extra to slam down on people. Don't know why*. But it only applies to officials of the federal government, and (this I did not know) employees, i.e. normal workers who aren't appointees or elected, presumably.


So: Nothing unusual to get upset about here, move along folks.




* Probably so they don't have to sit around waiting for, or worse, relying on state-level investigations and prosecutions.

 

[casebro]

Same thing happened with McVeigh, the Oklhoma city bomber. State charges later were a slam dunk.

 

[casebro]

Possible consideration: insanity plea? Different state vs fed?

 

[Chaos]

I've gone back and forth on this issue, but I can see why certain murders should have stiffer penalties. It is possible that he was shooting at the congresswoman in an effort to subvert the foundation of our country (i.e rule of law constructed and enforced by duly elected officials in free and open elections) or that he was hoping to terrorize other congressfolk by this murder. If he shot the the child simply because she ran between him and his target then, of course he should be charged with first degree murder of the child, but the punishment for that might be less than the punishments for the previously described crimes. On the other hand, I am not willing to fall on my sword defending this particular instance of the issue.

Both the federal charges in the opening post and upcoming state charges carry the possibility of the death penalty.

Speaking which, isn´t the bolded part an entirely separate crime in addition to murder and attempted murder? Something like, I don´t know, terrorism, armed insurrection, trying to overthrow a duly elected government, rebellion. Whatever. I´m not a lawyer.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Possible consideration: insanity plea?

I think that's a given.

The role of the defense attorney in a case like this isn't to get a not guilty verdict, it's to avoid the death penalty.