Federal prosecutors said they would seek the death penalty in the case of the man charged with terrorism for killing eight people by driving a truck along a bike path in New York.
The government's intention to seek capital punishment, which is rare, was made in a court filing Friday. Prosecutors say Sayfullo Saipov, who is from Uzbekistan, drove a rented truck on the bike path next to the West Side Highway in lower Manhattan on Halloween last year in an attempt to kill as many people as possible. Mr. Saipov told investigators that Islamic State videos he watched on his cellphone inspired him to carry out the attack, authorities said.
* * *
Earlier this month, lawyers for Mr. Saipov had argued that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who ultimately makes the decision about whether to seek the death penalty, could have been influenced by [President] Trump's public statements [about the death penalty in this case].
Though it sounds flippant, one is tempted to answer the latter argument with "so what"? The Constitution unequivocally vests all executive authority in the President. All other executive officers derive their authority from him. Though Presidents traditionally have not gotten involved in decisions on particular prosecutions, no law forbids them from doing so, and any such law would be unconstitutional.
New York has a death penalty in theory but not in practice. Its legislature has been deadlocked on the issue. The state's highest court found a flaw in the death penalty law and then found that flaw to not be severable from the whole law, in defiance of an express legislative directive to the contrary. For years afterward, opponents of the death penalty were able to block a statutory fix even though unable to pass a repeal.
But the federalism question is not difficult here. This was a terrorist attack on the country as a whole, not a murder of the kind normally reserved to state law. It is proper that this be a federal case, and a lesser penalty for this crime would be insufficient.
"lawyers for Mr. Saipov had argued that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ...
could have been influenced by [President] Trump's public statements"
"Court filings show he had previously offered to plead guilty if prosecutors
didn’t seek the death penalty".
How about being influenced by the facts that the client is accused of
deliberately murdering 8 people, and that he offers to plead guilty?
Is there no extent of obviousness of premeditation, nor multitude of
counts of murder, before the federal death penalty becomes proper?
Is there no preponderance of evidence
which makes extraneous influences irrelevant?
"For years afterward, opponents of the death penalty were able to block a statutory fix even though unable to pass a repeal."
Translation: The democratically elected state legislature has chosen to follow the will of its constituents and not reinstate the death penalty. A penalty that, while it existed notionally from 1995-2005 resulted in no executions. Nor has the absence of the death penalty been a problem giving the plummeting murder rate in NY.
By the way they have had 13 years to reinstate the death penalty if people wanted them to, part of which time there was a Republican governor who would have signed it. Interestingly, since the law was overturned, no Republican has been elected governor, though it was a key issue in Pataki's election. Democracy at work.
Are you seriously contending that the legislature has made a "choice" against the death penalty when a fix bill passes one house but not the other, but the opponents also cannot get a repeal bill through?