Hey Kly, your opinion about the following:
In a Law & Order episode, the DA charged suspects with terrorism for fighting in public. Why not charge Mafiosi with terrorism generally and, in particular, because their associations could be with foreign agents? I think it's a theory of the crime that should be explored.
A very good question, olivant. I wish I saw the episode.
The short answer to your question is in some instances a proven association with a foreign entity could provide a basis for a charge under federal anti-terrorism legislation (with which I have no experience).
As I understand it, federal terrorism laws address threats to the widespread civilian population, threats of intimidation or coercion against the US government or attacks linked to federal policy or governmental functions and objectives among other things.
Two reasons why these statutes aren't applied to instances of violence from organized crime syndicates go hand in hand. First, the burden of proof in these cases is probably very difficult to establish a specific criminal relationship between overseas entities and domestic perpetrators. Secondly, criminal process generally requires that a defendant be charged with the more specific charge when two or more theories of guilt can be stated. The RICO Act was designed specifically for organized crime and there is legislation within the Act and associated with it that more directly address the situation you described. Therefore, prosecutors probably regard the anti-terrorism laws as overkill, requiring a harder burden, and offering possibly less chance of success at trial.
A prosecutor won't hesitate bringing multiple counts on an indictment for a single crime when the charges include lesser included offenses. That, of course, would be something like murder 1, murder 3, manslaughter, in which he present the facts and let the jury pick a result among several choices, sharing some of the same elements.
dontomasso would certainly have interesting opinions on this.
