Academic

The other Oregon bombing case

By Tung Yin

Although the Mohamed Mohamud case draws the front page treatment in the Oregonian and the lead time slot in the local TV news, there's another Oregon bombing case in the news right now: the 2008 Woodburn bank bombing.  (Woodburn is about 30 miles south of Portland and has one of those big outlet malls.)  This was an actual bombing attack that killed the police bomb technician who tried to defuse it and another police officer, and a father and son stand accused of aggravated murder.  It's a capital case, meaning that if convicted, the defendants could face the death penalty.  The prosecution and defense have rested, and the judge just denied defense motions for acquittal as a matter of law.

One might wonder why this case, which involves a real bomb and actual deaths, isn't being treated as a terrorism case.  The prosecution's opening statement referenced some strong anti-government views espoused by the defendants, and the actual conduct alleged would seem to fall as much within 18 USC 2332a (use of weapon of mass destruction) as do the accusations against Mohamud.  After all, the elements of 18 USC 2332a require showing that the defendant used, threatened to use, attempted to use, or conspired to use a weapon of mass destruction against "any person or property within the United States" and where the offense affects interstate commerce.  Because of the aggregation principle (that is, in considering whether there is an impact on interstate commerce, the government is allowed to add up the impact from all other instances of this kind of conduct), it would be easy to show the interstate commerce impact.  A bunch of bombs at banks would definitely have a negative impact on the national economy.

But of course, the obvious difference is that this case was investigated by the local police, not by the FBI.  That's not a barrier to federal prosecution; the infamous Gun-Free School Zones Act case, U.S. v. Lopez (1995), started as a state case that ended up in federal court.  But it is an important distinction between the Mohamud case and this one.

In addition, the difference between state and federal cases is often that federal law imposes harsher sentences, particularly in drug cases.  In the Woodburn case, however, the defendants are already potentially facing the death penalty, so it's not like federal prosecution of the offense as a terrorism offense would lead to any greater punishment than what could be achieved in the current forum.

Full post as published by The Yin Blog on December 03, 2010 (boomark / email).