2006-08-29 18:04:59 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
God point. But it's like John Allen Muhammad, the Washington sniper. They will both get a chance to try him and the two states will work out a deal to warehouse him according to whatever sentence he gets and whether it's pronounced as consecutive or concurrent.
Unless there's some political reason for doing otherwise, the first trial is by the state that catches him (Nevada may get to choose . . .), extradites him first, or has the better likelihood of an easy and quick conviction.
2006-08-29 18:13:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nobody wants to risk him getting away again so it's going to be the state with the strongest chance of conviction as well as the first state ready to take it to court.
The Federal Government has issues with him as well and it's possible he may see a Federal Courtroom first.
Both states and the Feds will work together to determine the best and swiftest course to take.
2006-08-30 01:55:27 · answer #2 · answered by sarhibar 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who will deal with him in the harshest manner possible? That state should get first crack. My money is on Arizona.
2006-08-30 01:08:59 · answer #3 · answered by Ally K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Utah for sure.
2006-08-30 01:08:14 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not Utah, not yet, because it is Mormon, and you never know what they may decide to do to him, like elect him Governor or something stupid like that.
2006-08-30 01:09:50 · answer #5 · answered by Iamstitch2U 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
KFC.
2006-08-30 01:13:13 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋