Comments on: Some notes on Langston sentencing, and Sandra Knispel on the Langston letters

By: NMC

NMC — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:36:19 +0000

Hot Rod, it’s pretty common for congressmen in states with no in-party senators to claim senatorial privileges, but less common for them to amount to them to get a lot more than “well, we’ll listen to you.”

By: Ben Cole

Ben Cole — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:22:28 +0000

NMC @ 9: Another angle on dual prosecutions … States frequently impose lighter sentences than the feds, particularly for offenses involving guns and drugs (that oughta be all one word). In some of those cases the feds will prosecute just to keep the perps locked away longer. Conversely, states frequently let the feds prosecute embezzlers and other white collar defendants because the feds have “better” prison facilities for these non-violent offenders.

By: Hot Rod

Hot Rod — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:59:55 +0000

Here is a nugget of information. I have just confirmed that Travis Childers will be picking the next United States Attorney for the Northern District. Seems like he has convinced everyone that he should pick it, because he represents the majority of the population and Bennie agreed with the logic. So, why is Joey rushing to get sentenced again?

By: lotus

lotus — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:43:40 +0000

NMC, check yo’ email.

By: NMC

NMC — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:09:54 +0000

Crispen, that only prohibits the use of stuff obtained by cooperation, doesn’t it? I guess given the practical fact that all of the information is now in one big pot over at the US Atty office and thus has an unremovable taint, a prosecution would be hard to engineer. But I don’t think it even gets to that– my experience is that even in cases where the defendant is not cooperating, there’s not much interest in dual (dueling?) prosecutions.

By: Crispin Garcia

Crispin Garcia — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:37:34 +0000

Actually, in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendment required the federal government and states to respect each others’ grants of immunity.

While Joey Langston’s plea agreement does not spell out the word “immunity,” I believe that’s exactly what’s at play here.

Also, despite the absence of express language, for the State to prosecute Patterson it would have to be able to demonstrate that the evidence used to prosecute him was derived independently of any information he provided to federal authorities. Thus, when you start to sing, sing . . . and sing . . . and sing.

Take a look at Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179 (1954) and 18 U.S.C. 6002 and come to your own conclusions.

This is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue involving cooperative federalism, so please don’t beat me up for my short and woefully inadequate analysis.

By: jdog

jdog — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 23:15:04 +0000

i agree w/ NMC…what i generally have seen…is that most feds and most state prosecutors are plenty busy..however in some drug cases i have seen a tag team both in state and fed court..usually a gun charge in fed ct to coincide w/drug charge in state…but that is where they are after someone..or that someone has ticked them off completely

By: Jax-Relief

Jax-Relief — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:58:27 +0000

Yes, or Frank Melton, for example.

With Hood as AG a state prosecution is doubtful. He has, and will, defer to the Feds.

By: RandomThoughts

RandomThoughts — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:46:50 +0000

Didn’t Michael Vick face state charges after the feds got done with him?

By: NMC

NMC — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:11:09 +0000

Gearhart, state and federal prosecutors almost view themselves as having an informal arrangement of not interfering with each other’s prosecutions unless they both think it would advance their interests. I’ve seen drug cases where they used the threat of a parallel federal prosecution to double up on a defendant to force a deal. But other than that, it’s more unusual than this case is unusual– I think the state prosecutors will justify standing aside because going after the prosecution’s star witness (or those who are defendants elsewhere) would risk getting in the federal prosecutor’s way.

In honest moments, a state prosecutor will note that they have plenty to do without going after cases that are already being handled by federal prosecutors with more resources. It’s a combination of that practicality and the considerations noted in the first paragraph. So perhaps I should have said very unusual.

I’m obviously ready to be corrected by counterexample or the like, but that’s my guestimation.