- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,730
- Reaction score
- 23,091
I agree, thanks for this example based on personal experience.I think it was a federal crime because the felon crossed state lines. I'm not a lawyer but I was involved in a federal crime.
A coworker was laid off and a year later he came to the office in the early morning and poured gasoline around the building then threw a molitove (sp?) cocktail through a window.
No one was hurt and like a typical arsonist he returned to the scene of the crime.
Because the company has an office in another state the feds took the case and threw the book at him to keep him in prison for a minimum of 40 years.
I've never understood that. It may have had something to do with the Patriot Act. Domestic terrorism, having marijuana, ammo that didn't match his gun, etc.
What you said here:
"Because the company has an office in another state the feds took the case and threw the book at him to keep him in prison for a minimum of 40 years"
Made a light go on in my head, as it sounded like the federal charges for crossing a state line during the commission of a crime, or thereafter to flee justice, or return to the scene of the crime, is like another layered "option with more weight for a longer prison sentence" (my paraphrasing) that can be added on and be superseding.
Which makes me wonder if the federal charges are sometimes brought in if the other charges the perp could be convicted for may not stick or may have a lesser sentence that the judge and prosecution feel is not appropriate punishment for the circumstances of the crime (felony).
Maybe in this case, they held the fugitive traveling across state lines designation "in abeyance" until the state had their opportunity to indict and prosecute, but could or would still be able to bring federal charges IF needed/IF BK hadn't been convicted and found guilty on all charges with 4 life sentences, the maximum time / his lifetime, as it were.
BUT:
IF the felon BK had gotten off/been found innocent or only found guilty of the B&E felony or lesser charges like manslaughter but not their murders at trial for some reason (you never know with a jury trial, as BT has said was one of the reasons they accepted the last minute plea deal)
AND the maximum sentences when added up for what he was found guilty of in a hypothetical jury trial were not extensive enough for the judge and prosecution to deem appropriate (there's a legal term for this I can't recall right now)
THEN maybe the federal charges "held in abeyance" could/would be brought to add on to the length of his prison term so they added up to the "right number of years" deemed satisfactory and in line with due diligence for the commission of such heinous crimes by the prosecution.
JMO... somehow this makes my day that there could be a fall-back mechanism like this for more severe charges lopped on federally when needed, just in case things didn't turn out as they did in this case at the state level, thankfully!
"abeyance
An abeyance is a temporary suspension of activity while awaiting the resolution of some other proceeding without which the activity in abeyance cannot continue."
