The Redundant Federal Charges Against Derek Chauvin
Last week, the Justice Department indicted former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for the same conduct — the killing of George Floyd — for which a Minnesota state jury convicted him of murder. Contrary to the wailing of a goodly portion of the defense bar, such a successive prosecution by a different sovereign is permitted by the Constitution, as SCOTUS reaffirmed in its 7-2 opinion two years ago in Gamble v. United States. But that does not end the inquiry: Although the prosecution is permitted, is it wise? Is it fair? Does it serve a distinct federal interest sufficient to be worth the cost and risks?
I have considerable doubts about all those things, as explained below. But I want to say one thing by way of preface. This should not become yet another “oh-the-government-is-so-bad” festival. The trouble here started with Chauvin, not the government. If he had shown more restraint, judgment and professional care, we wouldn’t be in this situation. The best way to avoid having to deal with the outcroppings of criminal behavior is to avoid the behavior to begin with. In Chauvin’s case, as in most, it’s just not that hard.

Jon Hilsenrath and Joe Barrett have