On March 4, 2011, the Office of the United States Attorney, District of Arizona, announced a new 49-count indictment against Jared Lee Loughner, 22. The indictment had been returned by a grand jury the day before.
The charges were all in relation to the shootings in front of a Safeway store in Tucson January 8, 2011, where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was meeting with constituents. When the firing stopped, six people lay dead while 13 were injured, including the congresswoman who was shot in the head and severely wounded.
Does the Federal Government Have Jurisdiction over All Charges?
Shortly after the shootings, Loughner was indicted on three charges: the attempted assassination of a member of Congress and the attempted murder of two federal employees who worked for the congresswoman. But many of these new federal charges do not involve federal employees or crimes alleged to have been committed on federal property.
As stated in an article posted on New York Magazine’swebsite on March 4, “Tucson Shooter Charged With 46 New Charges by Declaring Safeway Federal Ground,” the filing of federal charges could lead to issues on appeal. In the article, a law professor at George Williams University is quoted as saying that the additional charges were overkill as the same charges could still be filed in state court. The article goes on to say that declaring the area where Giffords spoke as federal property was a “novel argument.”
Officers and Employees of the United States
Title 18, section 1114 of the United States Code makes it a federal crime to kill or attempt to kill any officer or employee of the United States. But in order to constitute a crime under this section, the person must be engaged in the performance of their official duties. This section also applies to people who are assisting such officers or employees with their work.
There is no argument that Congresswoman Giffords and those from her office who were assisting her fall under this section. But the jurisdiction under this section concerning the murder of federal judge John Roll was more problematic.
There were conflicting reports as to what exactly led Judge Roll to be in front of the Safeway store on January 8. One was that he went there to discuss “business” with Rep. Giffords. If that was the case, he would have met the requirement that he was engaged in the performance of his duties. But another report stated that he had just left church, happened to walk by and decide to say hello to Giffords. If this scenario is correct, then he was not conducting any official duties at the time of the shootings.
The other victims were not federal officers or employees, and the US government could not retain jurisdiction over their deaths or injuries under this section.
Federally Protected Activities
Section 245 of Title 18 of the US Code gives the federal government jurisdiction over those who willfully injure or intimidate those who are “participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by the United States.”
US Attorney Dennis K. Burke of the District of Arizona stated that the four people who were killed, and who were not federal government employees or workers, died “while exercising one of the most precious rights of American citizens, the right to meet freely and openly with their Member of Congress.” The government will argue that the meeting held by Rep. Giffords on the morning of January 8 was a federally protected activity and therefore all of Loughner’s alleged crimes can be prosecuted by the federal government.
Loughner is expected to be arraigned on the 49 counts on March 9, 2011.
Arthur Weinreb - Weinreb is an author, associate editor and columnist with Canada Free Press and the Canadian Affairs Feature Writer for Suite 101.
Join the Conversation