Rachel Moran, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, spoke with WCCO-TV about why Minnesota prosecutors are pursuing state charges against Vance Boelter despite his federal conviction and life sentence for the 2025 attacks on state lawmakers. Moran explained how a state conviction could provide additional legal protections if the federal conviction were overturned or a presidential pardon were granted, while also discussing the costs and challenges of a second trial.
From the story:
So why bother pursuing state charges? Good Question.
“There are a couple different reasons why you might,” said Rachel Moran, professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. “One is just the belief that the state has a responsibility to prosecute serious crimes, and irrespective of whether the federal government already has, it’s something the state should do.”
Another reason is to protect against changes in a federal conviction. Moran said hypothetically Boelter could have a successful appeal in the federal case.
“You could still potentially have a state conviction to ensure he would remain incarcerated,” she said.
There’s also the possibility of pardon. The president of the United States can pardon someone convicted of a federal crime but not a state crime.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty referenced that point specifically in her decision to continue Boelter’s state case, saying on social media, “State sentences are not affected by presidential pardons.”
Boelter’s case is unique because often after a federal conviction, or a state conviction, prosecutors in the other court system opt to skip their trial.
“Sometimes a state prosecutor says it’s not worth the resource investment, the cost involved, and also potential trauma to witnesses or victims or family members of victims,” said Moran.
