Getting away with MURDER!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

What did you mean, then? Yes, crimes committed on federal property are federal crimes.

[Senegoid]

But murder isn’t a Federal crime (except for some specific circumstances where it is)! (Or is it now?)

If one commits murder on federal property, isn’t it still a state crime in the state where that property is located?

[MEBuckner]

@Senegoid

But murder isn’t a Federal crime (except for some specific circumstances where it is)! (Or is it now?)

If one commits murder on federal property, isn’t it still a state crime in the state where that property is located?

I think the feds would have jurisdiction:

18 U.S.C. 1111: Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

18 U.S.C. 7: The term “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, as used in this title, includes:

…(3) Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

[Bricker]

@gnoitall

Sure they can. The Federal District of Wyoming empanels a jury drawn from registered voters in the district, irrelevant of where they live, and the judge shoots down your spurious defense as frivolous. I assume you’d have your mouthpiece make a motion to dismiss or acquit based on jury selection? I hope you have a backup plan.

That’s probably what would happen – but it’s not frivolous.

A guy accused of poaching elk in the park raised the defense and sure enough, the judge said:

For practical purposes, any cause of action occurring within Yellowstone National Park, whether in Wyoming, Idaho, or Montana, must result in a jury trial in the District of Wyoming, and jurors selected from a pool of Wyoming citizens. To adopt a different position would create a virtual no man’s land. Since there is no case law that states otherwise, this Court must dismiss Defendant’s objection to a Wyoming jury panel.

I think you’ll agree that the judge’s logic is a bit thin. However, the guy was offered a plea deal, and it included his agreement not to appeal based on the Vicinage Clause – so the issue cannot be said to be fully tested.

[RivkahChaya]

Well, in Terre Haute, Indiana, there’s a federal prison, which includes a death chamber, and it’s where Timothy McVeigh was executed. It’s not where Indiana executes state inmates: that is at the men’s prison in Indianapolis. Anyway, if McVeigh wasn’t tried on federal charges, why was he held and executed in a federal prison, and if it wasn’t for murder (with special circumstances), what was it for? I don’t think it’s necessarily true that murder isn’t a federal crime; the federal government cedes jurisdiction in matters of criminal law to states, except for the specific rights of the accused that are constitutionally defined, but when there is no state to take jurisdiction, there are still a lot of things that are illegal. Otherwise, national parks would be full of people shooting smack, people on the sex offender list who can’t find anywhere else to live, and people secreting plotting to murder their camping buddy.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

McVeigh was tried and convicted on federal counts. The building he blew up was the Alfred Murrah Federal Building, and the eight murders he was indicted for were of federal employees. He was also indicted for various federal conspiracy and mail crimes.

But murder isn’t a Federal crime (except for some specific circumstances where it is)! (Or is it now?)

If one commits murder on federal property, isn’t it still a state crime in the state where that property is located?

The specific circumstances where it is include murder on federal property and murder of federal employees.

[Chronos]

My preferred solution to the Yellowstone Problem is to empanel a jury of grizzly bears native to that sliver of land. “Your Honor, we find the defendant guilty by virtue of being tasty with hot sauce.”

[Patch]

@Claverhouse

Why in the world would you ever tell anyone you had a companion ?

Heh. Indeed.

The whole scenario popped out of a weird dream I had. Just wondering where it would go if I ever shared my tale of adventure once rescued.

[Patch]

@Chronos

My preferred solution to the Yellowstone Problem is to empanel a jury of grizzly bears native to that sliver of land. “Your Honor, we find the defendant guilty by virtue of being tasty with hot sauce.”

Don’t bother appealing your conviction to a higher court – that would be the buzzards.

[UltraVires]

@Bricker

I think you’ll agree that the judge’s logic is a bit thin. However, the guy was offered a plea deal, and it included his agreement not to appeal based on the Vicinage Clause – so the issue cannot be said to be fully tested.

Thin doesn’t even begin to describe it. Non-existent is more accurate. As a textualist (I believe you are a textualist) how would you rule in that case? I think that the proper way would be to let the poacher go free and force Congress to close the loophole.