Louis Coleman was arrested in Delaware after he was found with the body of 23-year-old Boston resident Jassy Correia in his trunk. While Massachusetts has abolished the death penalty for state crimes, it is possible that Coleman could face capital punishment under federal law. Morning Edition Host Joe Mathieu spoke about the federal death penalty and whether federal prosecutors might seek it in this case with WGBH News Legal Analyst and Northeastern Law Professor Daniel Medwed. The transcript below has been edited for clarity.
Joe Mathieu: We've talked about this case a lot over the last bit here. Correia was a Massachusetts resident taken from a Massachusetts street. What makes it a federal crime?
Daniel Medwed: It's a great question. Now, there could be some state crimes here, but here's what makes it a federal crime. Federal courts have jurisdiction over crimes that occur on federal property — say, there's a murder at a post office or at the Bunker Hill Monument, which is operated by the National Park Service — or, among other things, when the criminal activity implicates Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. So here, as you noted, she was picked up on a Massachusetts street, but then he drove her to Providence, Rhode Island where he lives. He was later apprehended in Delaware. He clearly crossed state lines as part of this crime. That's what gives the federal courts jurisdiction.
Mathieu: So it qualifies, obviously. But how do federal prosecutors then go about deciding whether to seek, in this case, the death penalty?
Medwed: That's a big question. Basically, assuming the crime is eligible for capital charges — and this one is, kidnapping resulting in murder — then it's a two-stage decision-making process. First, the U.S. attorney in the applicable federal district, here Andrew Lelling of the District of Massachusetts, has to evaluate as a normative matter: does this case deserve a death sentence. [Second], assuming that Lelling agrees to file capital charges, then that decision is reviewed by the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. — it's known as Main Justice. They can either give thumbs up or thumbs down on that decision.
Mathieu: Will Lelling go there in this case?
Medwed: It's hard to say. [There are] lots of variables in play. But let's start by looking at some precedent cases from Massachusetts recently. Massachusetts abolished the death penalty for state crimes many decades ago, so we don't have many precedents to go on, just a few federal death penalty cases in eastern Massachusetts over the last 10 years or so. I'm thinking of the Boston Marathon bombing case, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and serial killer Gary Lee Sampson. So on the one hand, the Boston Marathon case is not a good comparison. It's very distinguishable because it involved ample advance planning, a weapon of mass destruction, three killings, hundreds of casualties. On the other hand, [the Sampson case] might appear at first blush to be a good comparison in the sense that it was also a kidnapping that resulted in murder across state lines, going from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. However, it involved three victims — three people died in the Sampson case, unlike this one. So I think at bottom, it's going to boil down to Lelling's ideology. How does he view the death penalty? Does he reserve it for the worst of the worst? And if so, is Coleman in that category? We just don't know, because Lelling's only been in office for a couple of years since President Trump appointed him.
Mathieu: What does it mean in terms of court procedure, if it's a death penalty case? Would it be different than a regular one?
Medwed: Yes, it will look and feel very different. For one thing, jury selection in a death case is incredibly protracted and lengthy because you have to find what's called a “death eligible jury.” That means jurors who are neither firmly ideologically opposed to the death penalty as a matter of principle, nor firmly ideologically in favor of it — people who are just willing to apply it if the facts merit it. That's hard to find anywhere, I think especially in eastern Massachusetts where views on the death penalty have hardened. In addition, the trial will look very different from a run-of-the-mill trial. There are basically two sub-trials in a capital case. First, the guilt phase: a jury will evaluate whether Coleman committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. And second, the sentencing phase: the jury will consider whether he deserves the death penalty. In a regular criminal case, it's that judge who handles sentencing. It's different in a capital case because of the stakes involved.
Mathieu: In this case [it] would play out over the course of years.
Medwed: Right.
