|
Edited on Thu Sep-15-05 12:28 PM by leveymg
the court has to have jurisdiction over the offense charged, and there are immunity to prosecution issues that must be overcome.
A state court has no criminal jurisdiction over offenses against its citizens that occur abroad, within other states, or on federal property. Unlike some federal laws, there is no extraterritoriality to state power. That just about eliminates any chance of state courts prosecuting federal officials for deaths of National Guardsmen in Iraq. However, if there is a nexis to the crime that occurs within the state, it might still be possible to prosecute, such as a criminal conspiracy that was planned within the state, but was carried out elsewhere.
Federal officials have varying amounts of immunity for acts pursuant to their duties. Prosecutors and judges enjoy absolute immunity for official acts, while the President and other executive officials have qualified immunity. Military officers are prosecuted by courts martial under the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. Purely private criminal acts are not protected by official immunity.
In cases of negligent homicide and reckless endangerment leading to the death and injury, official actions can be criminal if they were carried out with reckless disregard for the safety of victims, and the action was utterly unreasonable. That's presents a pretty high burden of proof for a prosecutor.
It is theoretically possible for the Attorney General of LA or another affected state to seek indictments against federal officials for deaths stemming from malfeasance in the administration of federal Katrina disaster response. That might lead to charges of negligent homicide. That does not mean, however, that such a prosecution is likely to be pursued or that a conviction would likely hold up on appeal to the federal courts.
|