Why was this case in federal court?

Email Print

A California blue-uniformed tax feeder (to quote Will Grigg) has pleaded guilty in a case where he forced a woman to perform oral sex on him after he pulled her over on a traffic stop.   However, the case was heard in federal court, yet it clearly was a case of sexual assault, which normally would be a state offense.  My question is why this was done.

Obviously, the rules of evidence in federal court are much looser and prosecutors pretty much are dictators who determine the charges, the convictions (acquittals are rare in federal court) and the sentences.  (Judges have discretion, but generally do what prosecutors demand.)  Still, while we can be happy that a blue-uniformed predator will be off the streets, nonetheless I have to ask  how in the world the federal government can get the authority to try this case.

This is an example — a small one, but nonetheless significant — of how the federal government slowly but surely is taking control of everything.  No doubt, state prosecutors were glad to hand it to the feds, but to me, this is one more notch in the federal assault on our liberties.  As far as I can see, there was no justification for the feds doing this, and not long ago, the feds would never have been in the picture, but here we are with the feds now taking over what seems to be a simple sexual assault case.

7:16 am on July 18, 2009