Or they could choose not to waive either. The whole point of waiving is that you can choose not to do it.
So the Wyoming prosecutor charges the defendant, the defense asserts that Wyoming has no jurisdiction (as per this thread), the judge agrees and dismisses the case, then a prosecutor may file a petition for writ of mandamus against the court of appeals, to defend Wyomings jurisdiction and to issue a new trial.
See what happens from there. Hopefully the issue will be clarified.
The issue doesn’t really have anything to do with jurisdiction, as I understand it, other than that a crime which occurs in Yellowstone must be prosecuted by the federal government because the federal government has jurisdiction. Rather, the claim is simply this:
[ul]
[li]The 6th Amendment guarantees a jury trial for federal criminal prosecutions.[/li][li]The 6th Amendment further says the jurors are to be drawn from the state in which the crime was committed (Idaho).[/li][li]The 6th Amendment also says that the jurors are to be drawn from the district in which the crime was committed (the district of Wyoming – NB not the state of Wyoming).[/li][li]There are no qualified jurors, because the part of the district of Wyoming which lies in the state of Idaho is uninhabited. [/li][/ul]
In other words, the 6th Amendment provides procedural protections which limit the jury pool, and in this corner case the jury pool happens to be limited all the way down to zero people. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with it, as I understand the argument.
The same basic argument held for Bullfrog County, Nevada where again, state law required a criminal trial to be held in front of jurors drawn from the residents of the county in which the crime occurred, but because the county was uninhabited no jury could have been formed.
I think the plane/ship point is quite valid. (As long as you understand that we’re talking about plane/ships traveling outside the US.)
In addition, people are routinely prosecuted in Federal courts for crimes committed well outside any US territory.
If you can be prosecuted for going overseas to have sex with an underage person, why would one chunk of Idaho be a murder free-for-all?
A petition for writ of mandamus doesn’t do what you seem to think it does.
See post 49.
The Vicinage Clause does not apply in the case of federal crimes not committed within a state. The portion of Yellowstone within Idaho is within a state. (Idaho.)
Well, I’m not a US lawyer, I’m just trying to understand what the problem is and perhaps suggest ways that other countries have dealt with similar issues.
I think you just go with Idaho jurors. The law doesn’t require the courts do something that’s impossible. The District boundaries are set by statute, so the Constitution prevails in any analysis in the event of a conflict. The court could simple invalidate the statute setting that part of the park as part of the Wyoming District and let the case be heard in Idaho.
Ok, so as I understand it, if you step onto the grounds of a military base or a post office or anywhere else the Federal government has declared they have jurisdiction, you’ve left the state as far as prosecution is concerned. Rob the post office and you face trial in a federal court, rob the 7-11 next to it and you face trial in a state court. Sort of ironically, I’ve read you want to commit the bigger crime if you have to commit one, because federal prisons have less mistreatment, but I digress.
So wouldn’t this be the same if you shoot someone in yellowstone? Same as committing a crime in any other federally controlled area. I mean, going back to the OP, “crimes committed in the dead zone that are serious enough to warrant a trial by jury would be impossible since it’s uninhabited Idaho land that technically falls under Wyoming’s jurisdiction.”
If you’re in an airplane flying over anywhere, and you commit a crime onboard, you will be charged in Federal court somewhere. The way I read it, you get charged in the Federal district that belongs to Wyoming. The fact that it happens to be that district and not some other district is totally irrelevant with regards to the location the crime was committed - it’s Federal. They could pass a law that says that if you commit a crime on the International Space Station, you will be charged in the Federal district that covers the Johnson Space center (the one that is in Texas), since that’s where the astronauts usually train and live and those would be your peers. You could be flying over a different state when you committed the crime, hundreds of miles up, and that would be irrelevant.
Heck, you could have landed in your capsule, strangled your fellow astronaut before getting out, and you step out into say somewhere in California. Prosecution would argue you’re to be tried for the Federal crime of murder in Texas because you committed the crime while inside the capsule.
On what grounds would the court invalidate the statute?
Unconstitutional as applied, since it conflicts with ability to prosecute the defendant consistent with the requirements of the 6th amendment.
In case anyone is wondering this actually has come up before, on the Montana side. The district judge wasn’t impressed by the argument and he plea bargained so there was no appeal to further test the argument.
I’m going to repeat my argument. Yellowstone is Federal jurisdiction. Commit a crime in a Federally controlled area, and you will be prosecuted somewhere. Commit a crime in an airplane flying over a Federal district, and you might be prosecuted in the district you are flying over, or the one you left from, or the one you land at, or the one in Virginia that is next to DoJ headquarters.
Your defense can argue venue but there will be a venue.
Now the Feds have decided that parts of what is technically the state of Idaho shall be prosecuted in Wyoming. So what? You’re going to face charges in a federal district, and they’ve written down which one. It could be any district - Idaho doesn’t own Yellowstone. The Federal government does, and it trumps any and all state law. Your defense could again argue venue - maybe get it moved to your home state if the crime isn’t that serious and you want to be able to easily get to court while out on bail/own recognizance. But it will be somewhere that you face the judge and or maybe a jury. Nearly all Federal trials end in plea bargains because your odds of winning a jury trial and winning are something like 4%, so in practice this jury question is irrelevant. The jury is going to be stacked so hard you cannot win, with rare exceptions, just about anywhere, so it hardly matters.
As a side note, the way it works is very different from how the ideals of America are founded. A jury with a 96% conviction rate doesn’t sound like a jury of your peers to me, nor does it sound impartial. Essentially, the actual Federal justice system uses the Constitution as toilet paper in many different ways. And the Federal judges in charge of it are totally cool with that and have interpreted the document in light of what they want to keep doing.
Does the Sixth Amendment require the government to prosecute? Or does it merely place limits on the ways in which the government can act during a prosecution?
In other words, if the government violates the speedy trial statute, the accused can avoid prosecution. The court does not strike down the statute because “it conflicts with ability to prosecute the defendant consistent with the requirements of the 6th amendment.” (This assumes a statute that extends speedy trial rights past a constitutional baseline).
That’s not an argument so much as it is an assertion without citation to authority.
Under what legal theory will there be a venue?
Supremacy Clause. The state question is completely irrelevant as a result. This is the same reason why military bases ignore local building codes. You’re not in a state when you are in Yellowstone.
Let’s simplify this for a second. Suppose Congress writes a poorly-written law that has the unintended consequence that anyone wearing a red shirt during the crime must have a jury selected from people born before 1787, thus effectually making then immune from prosecution. I rob a bank in DC while wearing a red shirt. No one doubts that I committed the crime.
- Would a judge go by the letter of the law or ignore such an obviously flawed law?
- Could Congress change the law after the fact so I can be prosecuted?
Does the Supremacy Clause somehow invalidate the Sixth Amendment?
-
They would find a way to interpret that law in light of Congress’s intent that also happens to result in your conviction. Unless your defense can find a statement from the congressional debate over this law stating explicitly that this law is to protect criminals, the judge will choose an interpretation that negates this defense. Any Federal appeals are just going to ignore all but a small subset of legal questions, and again, the Federal appeals judges are going to choose an interpretation that leaves you, a dangerous criminal, locked up if they can stretch the interpretation in that direction. The Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari so the matter will end there.
-
No.
I could be wrong but I have a feeling that that particular clause is there because the British had a nasty habit of arresting colonists and then shipping them off to England for the trial.