Factual scenario giving rise to the criminal prosecution in federal court
Prosecutors freed a Dallas man that the police accused of murdering his cancer-stricken lover upon realizing that the law would not permit charging the suspect with homicide at the state level. The suspect, Sylvester Brown aged 61, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault against the victim, Sherry Whitacre, 60, prior to the prosecutors’ knowledge and before the ruling of the latter’s death as a homicide. The legal arguments imply that charging Brown would mean a violation of the double jeopardy standard (Eiserer, 2013). Therefore, the district attorney was unable to pursue a murder charge because Brown had been convicted of a lesser included offense to murder. Again, Whitacre died nearly a week later before Brown’s assault conviction and prior to the ruling declaring the murder a homicide. Therefore, it implies that once Sylvester had pleaded with the prosecutor, the state law protects him from prosecution. As a result, the district court must put the misdemeanor case on hold despite the fact that Whitacre sustained minor injuries owing to Brown’s attack (Eiserer, 2013).
Sadly, Brown was later prosecuted in the federal court because he used a gun, which is a federal property in committing the attack. Therefore, despite Brown’s continued plea, he was arraigned in federal court and later sentenced to 60 days in accordance with the provisions of the Class A misdemeanor assault (Eiserer, 2013). Ideally, the chief reason for the sentence relied on the medical examiner’s notification to the police that confirmed that the lady’s death was a homicide. Despite the aforesaid cancer-related issues that could have been the primary cause of the death, she had fractures on the bone, which autopsy confirmed to have resulted from gun shootings. Consequently, the injuries worsened her deteriorated medical condition. Later, a homicide detective authorized the police to arrest Brown on suspicion of murder after confirming his confession regarding picking Whitacre up but denied that he did not shoot. Therefore, a federal judge set a bail at $0.5 million (Eiserer, 2013). The federal statute that authorized the charging of Brown referred to the use of the gun to commit the murder and this allowed the prosecutors to pass a verdict that was against the defendant’s points of view. Finally, the double jeopardy clause protected the rights of the defendant by curtailing subjecting him twice for a similar offense in both state and federal court.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The crime prosecuted in federal court based on the scenario
One of the crimes prosecuted in the US federal courts in relation to the case scenario explained above is a capital offense. Definitively, a capital offense is a criminal charge usually punishable by a capital punishment. Such crimes strictly involve first-degree murder, espionage, genocide, and treason (Das, 2016). Therefore, in consideration of the above case, Brown’s murder of Whitacre was one with special circumstances because it involved the use of a gun. With reference to a legal statute, subdivision (a)(13) of the murder by use of a deadly weapon, which in this case is a gun, defines “murder”, as a capital offenses in consideration of Section 13A-6-2(a)(1), albeit not as it is defined in Section 13A-6-2(a)(2) and (3) (Das, 2016).
The crime prosecuted based upon the same conduct in a state court
The case prosecuted for a similar conduct in a state court is called the successive prosecutions for “the same offense”. This case subjects the defendant to double jeopardy issues at the state level that results in uncertainties since the state prosecutors hone their trial strategies based on successive attempts upon conviction. For instance, the case of Brown v. Ohio necessitated the conviction of the defendant for joyriding the complainant’s car without the latter’s consent and also for theft of the same automobile (JUSTIA, 2018). Therefore, the case involved a lesser included offense of the automobile theft with reference to the Blockburger test.
A cultural factor that influences how the crime may be prosecuted and how one culture might view a crime differently than another based on the cultures’ particular viewpoints.
Cultural defense is one of the factors that determine how specific cases are prosecuted in either state or federal courts. The defense usually protects individuals accused of female genital mutilation, child abuse, neglect or child endangerment. Therefore, various cultures may interpret a couple of statutes differently and enable prosecutors and juries to pass legitimate verdicts based on the most accurate degrees of culpability. This implies that the cultural defense enables both federal and state attorneys to provide valid excuses for the clients’ crimes based on different perspectives as regards the interpretation of the same law.
References
Eiserer, T. (2013). The Dallas Morning News. Dallas man arrested in murder case goes free because of double jeopardy. The Dallas Morning News Inc. Retrieved 7/9/2018 from https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2013/05/26/dallas-man-arrested-in-murder-case-goes-free-because-of-double-jeopardy
Das, S. S. (2016). “Capital Punishment – A Brief Contemporary Study in Present Context”. Dibrugarh University Press, Dibrugarh. Retrieved 6/9/2018 from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ss_Das2/publication/303702641_Capital_Punishment/links/574eb72508aefc38ba112206/Capital-Punishment.pdf?origin=publication_detail
JUSTIA. (2018). US Law: For the Same Offence. Retrieved 7/9/2018 from https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/06-for-the-same-offence.html
