Justin Eichorn Charged in Federal Court Instead of State Court for Child Solicitation: A Political Move or Justice?
"Why is Justin Eichorn being charged more severely than any of the others picked up in the sting operation doing the exact same thing?" It’s a good question. Justin Eichorn is facing child solicitation charges in federal court rather than state court, despite Minnesota having laws that directly apply to his alleged actions and despite others picked up in the same sting operation doing the exact same thing who are being charged in state court. The decision to prosecute at the federal level appears to be more about making a point and making him the poster child for the charge rather than because of comparative culpability. If you are facing child solicitation charges in Minnesota, contact Jack Rice Defense for a free confidential consultation at 651-447-7650 or 612-227-1339.
"We fight to keep our clients in state court here in Minnesota instead of facing federal charges. There a lot of reasons why this is the case."
State vs. Federal Charges: What’s the Difference?
Minnesota has clear statutes that address child solicitation offenses. If the goal were solely to enforce the law and hold Eichorn accountable, a state prosecution would suffice. However, federal prosecution often carries significantly harsher penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences and the potential for decades in federal prison. While it is true that the federal government has jurisdiction over internet-based solicitation cases, the decision to charge Eichorn in federal court rather than state court seems more about making a statement than simply enforcing the law.
Why the Feds Took Over
Federal authorities often intervene in cases like this for several reasons:
Publicity: Federal cases draw national attention, allowing federal prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to showcase their efforts in combatting child exploitation.
Harsher Sentencing: The federal justice system has stringent sentencing guidelines, ensuring that defendants face lengthy prison terms with little chance for parole.
Jurisdictional Control: By taking the case at the federal level, the U.S. Attorney’s Office removes the possibility of state-level plea deals that could result in lesser sentences.
While some may argue that federal prosecution is necessary to ensure justice, others see it as an overreach, particularly when Minnesota’s laws are fully equipped to handle such a case.
“Occasionally, both the state and the Feds step in for a bite of the apple. Think Derek Chauvin who was convicted or murdering George Floyd where he was convicted in Minnesota state court and then the Feds came in and charged him with similar charges.”
What This Means for Defendants Facing Similar Charges
If you or someone you know is facing child solicitation charges in Minnesota, it is crucial to have an experienced defense attorney who understands both state and federal law. The choice of jurisdiction can have a profound impact on the outcome of a case, influencing sentencing, plea negotiations, and defense strategies.
At Jack Rice Defense, we understand the stakes. When your job, career, reputation, family, and life are on the line, you need a skilled attorney who can navigate both state and federal courts. Contact Jack Rice Defense today for a free, confidential consultation at 651-447-7650 or 612-227-1339.
“The ramification of a child solicitation case are nothing short of catastrophic. This includes, jobs, careers, families, professions, reputations. The list goes on and on.”
Conclusion
The decision to charge Justin Eichorn in federal court instead of state court is questionable, especially given Minnesota’s strong laws on child solicitation. While federal prosecution may lead to tougher sentences, it also raises concerns about selective enforcement and political motivations. If you are facing similar charges, securing the right legal representation is essential. Jack Rice Defense is here to fight for your rights and provide the aggressive defense you deserve.