Wouldn’t it be relatively easy to get a writ of mandamus stating that the matter had to be heard in “x” state?
Arms don’t kill people, bearclaws do. From heart disease.
Am I correct in thinking that the boundaries of a federal court district wouldn’t be subject to the ex post facto clause? If so, the worst case scenario is that Congress has to move the crime scene into the district of Idaho or Montana. Having to rely on Congress moving quickly isn’t an ideal position for the prosecutor to be in, but it’s not an impossible one.
The ex post facto clause addresses the criminalization of conduct that was legal before, not a change in the boundaries of a court’s jurisdiction. No reasonable person would believe that murder was OK in any part of a national park.
The ex post facto clause prohibits retroactive application of any substantive change in the law. While venue is a strictly procedural issue in a sense, the composition of the jury is a substantive one, so I’m not sure the question is as clear cut as “the defendant knew he wasn’t allowed to murder people.”
On what grounds? The Sixth Amendment strictly limits the venue. A writ of mandamus directs an official to do something the law requires them to do. You can’t get a writ requiring an official to do something the law prohibits.
Nobody is saying that committing murder is legal in the 50 mile strip, mearly that prosecuting the crime is impossible since the government lacks the ability to call a jury that passes constitutional muster.
What makes this different from committing a murder on an airliner or ship with a U.S. flag (or on the International Space Station)? In all those cases, it’s a Federal crime, and the prosecution just chooses a court to prosecute you in (doesn’t have to be one where you live) and goes from there.
That was Yosemite.
What makes it different is that ships, planes and space stations aren’t within a state.
[QUOTE=Sixth Amendment]
The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when on actual service in the time of war, or public danger,) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites . . . . **ut if a crime be committed in a place in the possession of an enemy, or in which an insurrection may prevail, the indictment and trial may by law be authorized in some other place within the same State; and if it be committed in a place not within a state, the indictment and trial may be at such place or places as the law may have directed.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, Congress gets to decide where crimes aboard ship (or in US territories) are tried. But Idaho is a state, so Congress can’t modify the express directive contained in the Sixth Amendment.
Unless you’re a flag-fringer, you know that what’s “legal” is what “the government is gonna do.” Step back a moment: do you genuinely, honestly think that if someone were murdered in that stretch of Yellowstone, the government would shrug their collective shoulders and say, “nice one, go free good buddy”?
Of course they wouldn’t. Worst case, this might present a mild headache to the prosecutors; but there’s zero chance that they’d let a killer go on a loophole like this.
It comes across very much like a natural law citizen (or whatever those folks call themselves) argument, unless it’s simply pointing out an amusing wrinkle in the law that would, again, present a mild headache to prosecutors.
Of course they’re going to prosecute. The question is whether the law actually permits it.
Except the courts regularly thwart the governments ability to prosecute people based on all sorts of technicalities.
Er… yes, in fact airplanes and ships DO navigate within the territorial waters and airspace of various US states. Nonetheless, crimes on them may well be Federal matters rather than under the jurisdiction of the state in which the ship/plane happens to be in during the commission if the crime.
In theory, prosecuting someone for murder in the “50 mile strip” might get kicked up all the way to the SotUS, but the notion the person wouldn’t be held, tried, and perhaps convicted is nonsense.
The poster I was referring to was clearly discussing planes and ships outside the territorial jurisdiction of a state. But do go on posting your unsupported opinions.
Not really. And certainly not for murder.
It’s not an “unsupported opinion” - I’m a licensed pilot and learning about who had jurisdiction over various violations and crimes while flying was part of my flight school education and even appeared in one or two questions on the written test.
It’s also been put to the test by myself and several of my fellow pilots I know personally when local authorities tried to impose local ordinances or enforcement on us and were told in no uncertain terms they simply did not have jurisdiction.
But hey, why take the word of someone with actual experience in these matters? Go on and continue believing what you want to believe,.
Wait. The federal government of the USA has exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed in U.S. National Parks (and in other federally administered locales such as federal prisons, US territories, federal courthouses, military bases?). So surely any incompatibility with the sixth amendment must have been tested already, right?
The problem, if there is one, is that congress put part of Idaho in the Wyoming District. Not the case with every other area under federal jurisdiction.
So a defendant would either waive their right to Idaho or waive their right to Wyoming, whichever is seen as strategically advantageous.
You may be talking about thwarting the ability to introduce key pieces of evidence due to fourth amendment or fifth amendment violations, sure. But can you point to any time that a part of the US government has declined to prosecute murder because they couldn’t decide on a jurisdictional issue?