Anger follows acquittal in rare trial of Chicago cop Can anyone think of a rational explanation for this judge's ruling? Had they charged him with murder, they would have had to prove he intended to kill the victim, which clearly wasn't the case since he was firing at someone else.
He was tried for murder before? If that's the case then trying to try him again for "reckless killing" would indeed be double jeopardy.
He technically could still be charged under federal law and face a second trial because of the two sovereigns issue, but that almost never happens these days. I understand what the court was thinking--there was nothing involuntary about his actions or his intent so he could not be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.
Murder and manslaughter are not federal crimes unless the victim is a federal employee. At most he could be sued for violating the victims civil rights. That will make for an interesting defense the next time someone in Illinois is charged with involuntary manslaughter. "Judge, you must dismiss the charges against my client because he intended to kill the victim."
That is not the only circumstance in which the federal government could bring murder charges. If the victim was a gang member, they could try arguing that killing him adversely affected interstate commerce by disrupting the flow of drugs and guns into the city. Yep, they just have to wait until the prosecution rests its case to be certain the door is completely closed, though in some places it would be once the jury is seated that the state cannot amend a charge I think. The real kicker would be if they got it dropped from first degree to manslaughter on some pre-trial hearing ruling or something and then took the stand and said, "Yep I did it on purpose knowing I was gonna kill that mutha."
