The term “crime of violence,” used in a number of federal criminal statutes, is notoriously unclear and subject to a lot of litigation: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45220 (“Since the CCCA's enactment, reviewing courts have had to interpret and apply the statutory definition of a crime of violence, sometimes reaching disparate conclusions over the scope of that term.”).

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".

How about premeditated murder? Stalking is part of the premeditation, presumably. I think this technical argument/decision reeks of politics. Nearly all US murders take place in some state or another so they need to have federal prosecution potential.

> The article doesn't explain clearly why, even though no one seems to be disputing the murder, the murder charge is being dismissed.

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”.

[dead]

You don’t seem to understand the legal issues here if you’re saying this was an “error of basic law.”

What happened is that the feds took an aggressive but plausible legal position, and the district court disagreed. There are concurrent federal and state prosecutions. Ordinarily, murder is a state law charge. Some nexus to the federal government is required to elevate it to a federal crime.

Here, New York doesn’t have the death penalty, so the feds invoked 18 USC 924(c) in connection with a federal stalking charge. That allows the death penalty where someone is killed with a firearm during a federal “crime of violence.” So the question is whether stalking is a “crime of violence.” Seems like it could be, right?

The term “crime of violence” is the subject of a ton of litigation: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2025-04-25_LSB11293_4ec.... So the feds made an aggressive argument to secure the death penalty, and the district court disagreed. There’s nothing incompetent at all. Federal prosecutors sometimes take aggressive legal positions, and federal judges sometimes reject those positions.

You didn’t mention that Bondi was Florida’s AG for 8 years. Even Democrat Senators who voted against her acknowledged she is well qualified: https://www.welch.senate.gov/welch-votes-against-advancing-p... (“Pam Bondi is qualified. She has done outstanding work as an Attorney General, both as a County Prosecutor and as the Florida Attorney General, and I actually quite admire the grit that she had to take on a challenging statewide campaign to become Attorney General”).

Noem at the Senate hearing : "Well, habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country, and suspend their right to ..."

After senator cut her off and explained what habeas corpus really is, Noem responded:

"I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not."

The article says why the death penalty is no longer on the table — because the federal murder and weapons charges were dismissed, and the remaining charges do not qualify for capital punishment.

The article does not say why the charges were dismissed, though.

[dead]