Quote Quoting SilenceintheLibrary
View Post
That's what I originally wanted to do, but upon reading more, it definitely qualifies as a federal crime, since she did cross state lines with the child. Is it plausible that the federal government would not bring any charges in this case even though it could?
It is certainly possible that the federal government would forego prosecution when the state has already prosecuted the defendant for the same act. Indeed, that is fairly common. The Justice Department has a stated policy on when it will pursue prosecution when the state has already secured a conviction. The core of that policy is the following:

This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. In addition, there is a procedural prerequisite to be satisfied, that is, the prosecution must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General.

Satisfaction of the three substantive prerequisites does not mean that a proposed prosecution must be approved or brought. The traditional elements of federal prosecutorial discretion continue to apply. See Principles of Federal Prosecution, USAM 9-27.110.

In order to insure the most efficient use of law enforcement resources, whenever a matter involves overlapping federal and state jurisdiction, federal prosecutors should, as soon as possible, consult with their state counterparts to determine the most appropriate single forum in which to proceed to satisfy the substantial federal and state interests involved, and, if possible, to resolve all criminal liability for the acts in question.

USAM 9-2.031.

So, the basic process would be that the federal and state prosecutors would usually confer to decide in which forum the case should be brought — federal court or state court. In most cases, the case will only be brought in one of them and not both. For the feds to proceed after the state has already secured a conviction, the prosecutor needs to satisfy the three elements outlined in the policy above and secure the approval of an assistant attorney general (which is a high ranking official of the Justice Department).

Bottom line is that it is indeed possible that the case would proceed only in the Virginia courts and as this is your story you could certainly have it play out that way.


Quote Quoting jk
View Post
Yes they can Tm. It is up to the jury. While the jury is ethically expected to return a verdict on the merits, they can and have nullified a prosecution for whatever reason they choose.
The jury is not supposed to do it. The jury is specifically instructed on the basis it is supposed to decide the case. And, at least in the federal system, should a judge learn during the course of the trial that a juror intends to apply jury nullification, the court may dismiss that juror. Indeed, that was the holding of the case yourself linked. “Similarly, we conclude that a juror who is determined to ignore his duty, who refuses to follow the court's instructions on the law and who thus threatens to ‘undermine [ ] the impartial determination of justice based on law,’ Krzyske, 836 F.2d at 1021, is subject to dismissal during the course of deliberations under Rule 23(b).” United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997). In that case, the court pointed out that nullification is a violation of the juror’s oath and is contrary to the principles of the legal system. But, as I have already said, since the jury does not have to explain the reasons for its verdict the process allows for jury nullification anyway. The jury can decide to acquit for whatever reasons it chooses since it cannot be questioned why it arrived at that decision. Unfortunately that means, as we have seen in history, that juries sometimes acquit or convict for totally inappropriate reasons, including the race of the defendant or the race of the victim.