Let’s take the offense of murder as an example. Normally prosecuted at the state level, murder committed in a state can be prosecuted at the federal level as well. Murder can be prosecuted as a federal crime under ten distinct statutes:Murder of an elected/appointed federal official (18 U.S.C. §§ 351, 1751);Murder of a federal judge or law enforcement official (18 U.S.C. § 1114);Killing of an immediate family member of law enforcement officials (18 U.S.C. § 115(b)(3);Killing designed to influence the outcome of a court case (18 U.S.C. § 1512);Killing committed during a bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1111);Murder abroad a ship (18 U.S.C. § 2280);Murder related to rape, child molestation, and sexual exploitation of children (18 U.S.C. §§ 2248, 2251);Murder for hire (18 U.S.C. § 1958);Drug-related murder (18 U.S.C. §§ 36. 924(1)); andMurder by mail (19 U.S.C. § 1716).The simple fact is the federal government has sweeping authority under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. Criminal offenses with even a loose relationship to interstate commerce can fall under federal jurisdiction.

If the answer is “yes,” the court must ask the further question of whether the federal statutes that apply to the act or omission reveal a legislative intent to preclude application of the state law in question because the federal statutes reveal an intent to “occupy so much of a field” as would exclude use of the particular state statute. Thus, where, as here, a soldier kills a child on an army base, 18 U.S.C. §1111, which outlaws second-degree murder on a federal enclave, controls, rather than the state’s first-degree murder provision. United States v. Davenport, 131 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 1997) Wisconsin's DUI statute, for first offenders, does not constitute a "crime" under Wisconsin law; for a first offense, only civil penalties are available.

The federal murder statute applicable to some maritime and territorial prosecutions includes “malice aforethought” as an element of murder. Matter of M-W-, 25 I&N Dec. at 752 (quoting 18 U.S.C. §1111(a)). This concept, the BIA explained, has been part of the common law since before the sixteenth century.

[via LexisOne]Week of May 16, 2010:In Favor of the Prosecution or WardenDonnie Johnson v. Bell, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9975 (6th Cir. 5/17/2010) “Denial of defendant’s motions for equitable relief, following his conviction of murdering his wife and sentence to death, is affirmed in part and dismissed in part where: 1) district court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion is affirmed as defendant has not come forward with clear and convincing evidence that the prosecution presented intentionally false material to the the district court; and 2) defendant’s second Rule 60(b) is dismissed as he failed to first obtain leave from the court to file a successive application.”United Stats v. James Gallaher, Jr., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10205 (9th Cir 5/19/2010) “In a capital murder prosecution, the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss his superseding indictment is affirmed where the plain text of 18 U.S.C. section 1111(b) mandated that the court of appeals continue to categorize first degree murder as a crime punishable by death.”James Daniel Turner v. State, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 800 (FL 5/20/2010) “Defendant’s double jeopardy rights under U.S. Const. amend.

[via LexisOne]Week of May 16, 2010:In Favor of the Prosecution or Warden(initial list)Donnie Johnson v. Bell, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9975 (6th Cir. 5/17/2010) “Denial of defendant’s motions for equitable relief, following his conviction of murdering his wife and sentence to death, is affirmed in part and dismissed in part where: 1) district court’s denial of defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion is affirmed as defendant has not come forward with clear and convincing evidence that the prosecution presented intentionally false material to the the district court; and 2) defendant’s second Rule 60(b) is dismissed as he failed to first obtain leave from the court to file a successive application.”United Stats v. James Gallaher, Jr., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10205 (9th Cir 5/19/2010) “In a capital murder prosecution, the denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss his superseding indictment is affirmed where the plain text of 18 U.S.C. section 1111(b) mandated that the court of appeals continue to categorize first degree murder as a crime punishable by death.”James Daniel Turner v. State, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 800 (FL 5/20/2010) “Defendant’s double jeopardy rights under U.S. Const. amend.

, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 87, 119 S. Ct. 1086 (1999); United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that a "conviction for felony murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 requires the commission of an enumerated felony with the requisite mens rea for the underlying offense ... under a felony murder charge the commission of the underlying offense substitutes for malice aforethought"), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1132, 130 L. Ed. 2d 890, 115 S. Ct. 946 (1995).

, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 87, 119 S. Ct. 1086 (1999); United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that a "conviction for felony murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 requires the commission of an enumerated felony with the requisite mens rea for the underlying offense ... under a felony murder charge the commission of the underlying offense substitutes for malice aforethought"), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1132, 130 L. Ed. 2d 890, 115 S. Ct. 946 (1995).