It says may be removed, as in possibly moved, out of state court. I suppose it would depend on what’s what for the Feds to take jurisdiction. And it would be crazy that federal officers would have criminal immunity from state laws who could only be prosecuted in federal courts.
Moreover, I see a good chance of conflict of interests since all 93 federal DAs have been appointed by Obama, which was “graciously” pointed out up the thread by Nero the retread Jamese777.
"May be removed" means it's the defendant's option.
I suppose it would depend on what’s what for the Feds to take jurisdiction.
Yes, once the defendant files for removal, a federal judge would then decide if the requirements of section 1442(a)(1) are satisfied. If the judge decides those grounds are satisfied, then the state court "shall proceed no further" and the federal court "shall make such disposition of the prosecution as justice shall require." 28 U.S.C. 1455 (b)(5).
And it would be crazy that federal officers would have criminal immunity from state laws who could only be prosecuted in federal courts.
The whole point of section 1442 is that federal officers who claim that federal law gives them immunity from state prosecutions should have their immunity defense decided by a federal court, not a state court.
Moreover, I see a good chance of conflict of interests since all 93 federal DAs have been appointed by Obama, which was “graciously” pointed out up the thread by Nero the retread Jamese777.
Federal prosecutors would have no role. If the case is removed, it gets tried in federal court before a federal judge, but the state prosecutor would still prosecute the case.