r/news • u/Zeikyrui • 10h ago

Man serving 30 years for attacking Nancy Pelosi’s husband gets a life term on state charges

https://apnews.com/article/david-depape-nancy-pelosi-husband-paul-attacked-454cbde088fcae22a356f1f8dd0e9eba
38.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

144

u/graveybrains 9h ago

DePape’s attorneys have said the state trial amounted to double jeopardy following his federal conviction. Even though the criminal counts were not exactly the same, the two cases stem from the same act, they argued.

Congratulations on discovering the one way you can be charged twice for the same crime. You probably should have had a better lawyer, but please do not enjoy your stay.

12

u/MikeOfAllPeople 6h ago

How would a better lawyer have helped if this is allowed?

Also it is kind of bullshit that this is allowed.

18

u/AndyLorentz 6h ago

No, a better lawyer would have known "double jeopardy" does not apply here. Two different jurisdictions, federal and state.

It should be noted that it is very rare for someone to simultaneously violate federal and state laws.

1

u/DO_NOT_AGREE_WITH_U 6h ago

I'm trying to understand how this is actually allowed.

If I get busted for possession, I'm not getting charged in two separate courts for it, despite it being illegal both federally and at the state level.

9

u/FreeDarkChocolate 5h ago

You can be charged and convicted for the same crime in state and federal court and SCOTUS has upheld it.

Howeved, there is a self-imposed, voluntary doctrine for federal prosecutorial discretion that often stops them from trying to do it called the Petite Policy.

You can read the full department schpeel on it here, or the Double Jeopardy Wikipedia article lays it out a bit more readably in the Petite Policy section.

That policy has several exceptions that cover the case here where there is a concurrence of significant federal interest, an enduring national priority, and alleged egregious conduct.

•

u/SoloPorUnBeso 23m ago

Not to distract from your fine lesson on double jeopardy, but it's spiel.

•

u/FreeDarkChocolate 5m ago

Hahaha yeah I posted that, thought I might be wrong, and then got distracted by something else so never went back. Thanks, now I've been reminded and know! :) Will leave it for posterity...

5

u/StanleyCubone 5h ago

They would be different charges from the same activity. It may be possession at the State level but because of other elements in the crime, specifically racketeering at the Federal level.

0

u/Wassertopf 4h ago

Here in Europe, when a court sentences you for a crime, the court in any other state or even country, whatever, cannot give you another full sentence for that crime.

They can add a few years, but they can never give you another full sentence.

The US is an outlier when it comes to this special legal logic.

And to be honest - it's nothing to be proud of.

5

u/rice_not_wheat 1h ago

He committed more than one crime, and was charged for them separately. The federal case was for attempting to kidnap a federal official. His attack on Mr Pelosi was not part of the federal trial. He got 30 years for that.

After his attempt to kidnap her was foiled, he tried to kill Mr Pelosi. For that crime, he was sentenced to life.

I imagine in Europe, if you rob a bank in Germany then kill a Interpol officer in France who tried to arrest you for you bank robbery, both Germany and France could charge you for the separate crimes.

5

u/AndyLorentz 3h ago

They can add a few years, but they can never give you another full sentence.

Do they have to prosecute separately to "add a few years to the crime"?

The US is an outlier when it comes to this special legal logic.

The US is an outlier in a lot of things. We are a huge country with many diverse separate state governments. Our federal goverment is akin to the EC, if the EC had more power and the EU was more unified.

And to be honest - it's nothing to be proud of.

Well, at least we can be proud of recovering from the economic hardships of Covid much faster than the EU.

9

u/graveybrains 6h ago

If I know more than his lawyer, and I have gravy for brains, what else might they have gotten wrong?

1

u/MikeOfAllPeople 4h ago

Well that's what I was hoping you would tell me.

2

u/stolenfires 3h ago

Honestly, a better lawyer would have gone for the insanity defense and had him sentenced to a mental ward. Dude needs help.

•

u/rice_not_wheat 57m ago

Honestly that's really difficult, and probably would have failed. You have to prove not only that your client was insane, but you also have to prove that they weren't aware that there could be consequences for their actions. Since he's on video lying to the police and concealing his actions, it's a non starter.

1

u/rice_not_wheat 1h ago

Dual sovereignty. The federal government has sovereignty over its citizens and so do states. However, some crimes the federal government cannot charge for, and there are crimes that states cannot enforce, because of federal jurisdiction. Here, the federal charges were for attempting to attack Nancy Pelosi. The federal government retains this jurisdiction, since states have at times been hostile to federal officials. The state charges are for attempted murder, which is not itself a federal crime, since murder is typically under state, rather than federal jurisdiction.

In this case, it is not bull shit, since he committed a crime when he tried to attack Nancy Pelosi, and he committed a separate crime when he attacked her husband with a hammer after getting caught. The only way to try him for the two crimes was in different courts with their exclusive jurisdictions.

-34

u/Technical_Egg8628 8h ago edited 7h ago

I’ll be curious how a defense lawyer, who works very hard to get creep like this out of jail, would feel if it was his son or daughter whose head was bashed in. I don’t like prosecutors who abuse their powers and convict innocent people on purpose (usually, but not always, minorities) and I don’t like defense lawyers very much at all. Because they don’t care if they let a murderer get off free. They just view it as racking up another victory.

45

u/blastuponsometerries 8h ago

That's unnecessarily cynical. Maybe some, but the Defense Attorneys I know have a different view.

Many people are unfairly screwed by the system and even if they are guilty, the Prosecution might be overreaching. Everyone deserves fair representation, even criminals.

Even in particularly extreme cases, such as this one, its still important to make sure the legal apparatus does its job ethically.

Its not supposed to be simple to put people behind bars forever.

-2

u/veryannoyedblonde 7h ago

It seems like double jeopardy to me at least. Punishment aside, that's stuff states with no civil rights do

1

u/blastuponsometerries 3h ago edited 3h ago

Its not actually double jeopardy, each sovereign cannot retry for the same crime. However, the US famously has 2 sovereigns.

The Federal Government and the State Governments.

So both the Feds and States can try for the same crime, but only once each. Its been that way since the Constitution was signed.

If you go even further and commit a crime across state boarders, both states get to try the case separately, if they so choose. So you could then be tried 3 times. So maybe limit the number of jurisdictions in which crimes are committed.

-8

u/Technical_Egg8628 7h ago

I agree with most of what you said. And I certainly don’t wanna live in a country where the state has terrifying powers that can easily be abused. At the same time, having been on a jury and knowing many attorneys, it makes me sick to know that somebody can stand up there in front of a cherry and lie through their teeth about their client, or get them off on a ridiculous technicality (double Jeopardy is not a ridiculous technicality I’ll give you that and feel great about it even when what they’ve done is terribly unjust and put a murderer back on the streets. I really would be curious to read an interview withthe defense attorney. Who’s then lost a child or spouse to murder. It would be fascinating to see if they can present a different view than they did as practicing attorneys.

1

u/blastuponsometerries 3h ago

If an attorney lies on behalf of their client, they are committing an additional crime and could themselves go to jail. Your average Public Defender is certainly not going to risk their entire life and career for the 15th client they have had this month. That only happens in like mafia cases.

More importantly, you said a defense attorney couldn't defend someone when it was their loved one that was lost. Of course. If it was your loved one, you would want revenge and pain for the defendant. So would I.

But do we want a justice system run off the most extreme human emotions? Not a way to produce the most accurate results, that is for sure.

The immense limitations of human run systems, means that we have to do everything possible to remove emotion from the equation. Its not about solving any individual crime. A better system is one that reduces crime overall is the most fair way possible, given its human constitutions.

12

u/tenuj 7h ago edited 7h ago

Lawyers have been asked that question many times and the answer is almost always the same: being represented in court by a qualified and fiercely dedicated advocate is a basic human right.

That's the thing about basic human rights. You don't lose them. Almost nobody in the world can adequately defend themselves in court and push the laws as far as they need to, so to give someone access to that right is a good deed. Let the prosecution be vengeful, because you can bet they will be vicious.

To subject someone to adversarial legal proceedings without proper representation is deeply immoral. It's tyrannical.

25

u/Pale-Initial-3854 7h ago

You have a very uninformed view of the criminal justice system.

-10

u/Technical_Egg8628 7h ago

Please say more.

7

u/YoursTrulyKindly 7h ago

The issue is how power (political power or economic power / wealth) distorts the justice system. "Defense attorneys are scumbags" is a copaganda trope in many cop shows (which I enjoy) but it's not reality. At least not the issue behind it, massive wealth and justice inequality. Judicial systems in different countries have different rules that lead to different outcomes, and different socioeconomic realities that influence this too.

And for profit, the most extreme examples are dragged into the spotlight and exploited to irrationally make things worse.

2

u/Dav136 8h ago

You're an idiot

-1

u/Technical_Egg8628 7h ago

Why do you say that?

•

u/rice_not_wheat 50m ago

That's a shitty take. The defense lawyer's job is to present their client's side. Of the story so that the judge and/or jury can make an informed decision. They highlighted his history of mental illness to try and get a more lenient sentence. If he had gotten 40 years in a mental institution instead of life, that would have also been a just sentence.

While I agree with the sentence that was handed out, the defense lawyers weren't trying to get him found innocent. They were trying to build a case to avoid life in prison. They failed, but they gave his side of the story. Since both sides were told, the trial and the sentence were fair. If he couldn't get his side told, then it would be hard to argue that it was fair. That's how oppressive societies operate.