Ths is idiocy in its purest form. Belief in this concept shows a complete disregard for, or lack of understanding of the US Constitution.
This concept is just another government construct, another weasle worded government loophole, a way to bypass and trample on the US Constitution.
The 5th amendment is clear - no double jeopardy for citizens of the entire nation..
Why would certain constitutional rights supercede states rights and apply universally, but the prohibition against double jeopardy would not?
Only in the minds of corrupt government officials does that make sense.
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This is exactly what I was going to post.
It's absolute nonsense to believe that our Founders would have expected Zimmerman to have to face a second trial because of his encounter with Martin.
If the federal government feels compelled to take action in such a case, it should be the obligation of the federal government to prosecute for all crimes claimed against the defendant. We know that the state would not be entitled to answer an acquittal for murder by then announcing a new trial for manslaughter. All lesser included offenses should be argued at one trial.
I would like to know what crime the federal government would be claiming was committed by Zimmerman if he had not fired the shot and what evidence they have of such a crime.