It depends on how the state charges against them were dropped. Basically, the state can say why they’re dropping charges. In many cases, the state won’t bother charging them if the feds have a good case. In these cases, they often drop the charges without prejudice, which is basically the state going “we’re dropping these charges because the higher courts have you, but we can open the case again if the feds bungle it.”
In contrast, they can also choose to drop the charges with prejudice. This is usually what happens when the state doesn’t believe they have enough evidence to bring to trial. Basically, it’s the state going “eh, we won’t bother with this again in the future.” So if the charges were dropped without prejudice, then they could potentially be opened again.
I’d actually be curious to see if the pardon can be used against them, because US v. Burdick ruled that accepting the pardon also requires admitting that you are guilty of the crime you’re being pardoned for. The dude wanted to selectively refuse the first “I admit I’m guilty of this crime” part of the pardon, but accept the second “and accept the presidential pardon” part. The court ruled that the person being pardoned can’t accept the pardon without also admitting guilt. Lorrance v. Commandant USDB ruled that a presidential pardon doesn’t override habeas corpus, meaning the people would still have a right to a trial… Basically, the government wanted to take a dude’s presidential pardon, and use it to say “well he already admitted guilt, so we can just jump straight to sentencing. No need for a trial.” That got shot down. But it’s unclear whether or not that admission of guilt can be used against them during said trial.
It depends on how the state charges against them were dropped. Basically, the state can say why they’re dropping charges. In many cases, the state won’t bother charging them if the feds have a good case. In these cases, they often drop the charges without prejudice, which is basically the state going “we’re dropping these charges because the higher courts have you, but we can open the case again if the feds bungle it.”
In contrast, they can also choose to drop the charges with prejudice. This is usually what happens when the state doesn’t believe they have enough evidence to bring to trial. Basically, it’s the state going “eh, we won’t bother with this again in the future.” So if the charges were dropped without prejudice, then they could potentially be opened again.
I’d actually be curious to see if the pardon can be used against them, because US v. Burdick ruled that accepting the pardon also requires admitting that you are guilty of the crime you’re being pardoned for. The dude wanted to selectively refuse the first “I admit I’m guilty of this crime” part of the pardon, but accept the second “and accept the presidential pardon” part. The court ruled that the person being pardoned can’t accept the pardon without also admitting guilt. Lorrance v. Commandant USDB ruled that a presidential pardon doesn’t override habeas corpus, meaning the people would still have a right to a trial… Basically, the government wanted to take a dude’s presidential pardon, and use it to say “well he already admitted guilt, so we can just jump straight to sentencing. No need for a trial.” That got shot down. But it’s unclear whether or not that admission of guilt can be used against them during said trial.