Current Events > Judge Dismisses Charges in State Case Against Paul Pelosi's Attacker

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-dismisses-attempted-murder-other-213248873.html

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) A judge on Thursday dismissed several state charges against Paul Pelosi's attacker, who was convicted in federal court last month, based on the argument that the counts fall under double jeopardy, according to the San Francisco Public Defenders Office.

David DePape was convicted last month of assaulting a federal officials family member and attempting to kidnap a federal official. He was sentenced to 30 years in federal prison, which will run concurrently with any potential punishment to come out of the state trial. He will likely be deported back to Canada after he completes his punishment.

Following the victory in federal court, state prosecutors continued to pursue their own case against DePape, who bludgeoned former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosis husband with a hammer inside their San Francisco home in 2022. Paul Pelosi was 82 at the time of the attack.

But DePape's public defenders say the state trial represents double jeopardy following the federal conviction. Even though the criminal counts are not exactly the same, the two cases stem from the same act, the public defender's office said.

The judge on Thursday dismissed the state charges of attempted murder, elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon.

DePape still faces charges of false imprisonment, residential burglary, threatening a family member of a public official, attempting to sway a witness and aggravated kidnapping. Those were not part of the federal trial.

He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The public defenders office did not have an additional comment besides confirming the judges ruling. The San Francisco Chronicle and KQED first reported the dismissed charges.

DePape admitted during his federal trial testimony that he planned to hold Nancy Pelosi hostage, interrogate her and break her kneecaps if she did not admit to the lies he said she told about Russiagate, a reference to the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The attack on Paul Pelosi was captured on police body camera video just days before the 2022 midterm elections and shocked the political world. He suffered two head wounds including a skull fracture that was mended with plates and screws he will have for the rest of his life. His right arm and hand were also injured.

The district attorney's office did not immediately return requests for comment.

Slightly clickbaity

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

If you read the article, the charges he was convicted for in the federal court were the ones dismissed.

Other articles I've googled cited the guy is still on the hook for five other charges.

In other words, the article in the OP is not written very well.

The court dismissing the case due to double jeopardy in a state notorious for leniency on criminals totally signifies a huge Republican victory...

that guy is never getting out of prison and is still facing state charges that can carry up to life in prison

Figures.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


even if he was convicted on state charges the sentences would have been concurrent. a trial would have just been a waste of taxpayer money.

Guys read.

I really need you guys to focus and actually read the article and not listen to the stupid clickbait title

Irony posted...

Slightly clickbaity

This, Double Jeopardy is only okay as a gameshow

It's stupid about the state charges but obviously we shouldn't make a double jeopardy exception for it.

I think Cali might actually have a state law that says it is double jeopardy if a crime results in a federal conviction.

I don't know for sure about California's double jeopardy laws, but from the federal perspective this would not be double jeopardy.

The Separate Sovereigns doctrine (a.k.a. Dual Sovereignty doctrine) says that double jeopardy only applies to charges for the same crime by the same sovereign. The federal government and the state governments are considered different sovereigns for this purpose, meaning you can be charged for the same crime by both the federal government and the government of the state in which the crime was committed. SCOTUS ruled to uphold this doctrine as recently as 2019's Gamble v. United States, which was a 7-2 decision (Ginsburg and Gorsuch dissenting). This is a very well established legal doctrine. I learned about it in a intro law for non majors class, for example. It's a basic aspect of double jeopardy law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause#Dual_sovereignty_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamble_v._United_States

As for California, what I'm finding seems to suggest that the Separate Sovereigns doctrine applies to CA law as well.

Perhaps there is some specific reason why this doctrine shouldn't apply in this particular case, but I'm leaning towards the judge having ruled incorrectly.

He's already serving 30 years under the federal charges.

Humble_Novice posted...

DePape still faces charges of false imprisonment, residential burglary, threatening a family member of a public official, attempting to sway a witness and aggravated kidnapping.

You should probably put "some charges" in your topic title, given that the way it reads initially seems to imply that all the charges were dropped.

But you probably knew that already.

CyrusV posted...

He's already serving 30 years under the federal charges.

And the feds don't do parole. So he'll be 72 when he gets released.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

You should probably put "some charges" in your topic title, given that the way it reads initially seems to imply that all the charges were dropped.

But you probably knew that already.

Unfortunately, there's not enough space on the topic title.

Humble_Novice posted...

Unfortunately, there's not enough space on the topic title.

You could have dropped different words which are easier to infer. You didn't need to mention the judge in the title. It could have been reworded all sorts of ways to be more accurate.

I choose to believe that you knew what you were doing, and you wanted people to comment without reading the article.

Then again, I've been on CE too long and I'm used to attention-seeking behavior being the norm.

I didn't think the topic was misleading. I thought the bigger "story" was that the state judge is applying double jeopardy principles to federal convictions, which is weird.