I would like Congress to fix this. It would be simple–just redraw the lines so that the the District of Idaho is Idaho, the District of Wyoming is Wyoming, and the District of Montana is Montana.
There are not, to my knowledge, any good reasons not to do this. My theory may not prevail if a case ever arises, but it may. As such, there is a risk here, and it is a needless one.
Because the prosecutors and Congress know about this, and have made a conscious decision not to act, it becomes harder for them to argue in court that this was some minor wrinkle in the law that the courts should overlook. The Department of Justice knows that they would be violating the Sixth Amendment if they prosecuted an Idaho Yellowstone case. I find that very disappointing.
So the actual problem is that since they specified a Federal district different from the one where part of the park is for jurisdiction, if you commit a crime there, that district can’t empanel a jury from the state where you committed the crime.
Why? Couldn’t they bring charges in one district and then just send the case to the district when it’s time to assemble the jury? Or fly jurors from the other district? Is this just not done? Because either way, so long as the defendant faces jurors from the correct district, or agrees not to bring this up at appeal in return for a concession from the prosecution, this works, right?
Great to see a response from the original author here. The legal arguments are way above my paygrade but I’m following this discussion with fascination.
BTW as well as the book BrianKalt mentions above there is also a movie, Population Zero, 2016. It’s a found-footage faux documentary so don’t expect a serious treatment of the issue but it’s mildly entertaining as these things go.
Then it seems to me there is an easy argument for a Judge to make. Withholding sovereignty from a state within its borders is a violation of the Tenth Amendment so the law making it exclusively Federal jurisdiction is unconstitutional. So while there is this loophole so the Feds can’t prosecute there is nothing to stop Idaho from prosecuting them under state laws.
Put most simply, the problem here is that the District of Wyoming includes part of Idaho. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a district that spans multiple states, though in this particular case, the fact that the Idaho portion is unpopulated messes things up. Because the district has to be from the state (Idaho) and the district (the District of Wyoming) were the crime was committed, the jury has to be from the Idaho portion of Yellowstone.
The feds would empanel a jury from in and around Cheyenne, Wyoming, but those jurors are from the wrong state. If they decided instead to use jurors from Idaho, those jurors would be from the wrong district. They need to be from both Idaho and from the District of Wyoming, which is impossible as long as no one lives there.
Of course, there is no statute of limitations for murder. If the feds allowed the construction of a settlement in the Idaho portion of Yellowstone, there might some day be enough people to have a proper jury trial. If these people were settling there for the express purpose of being jurors in a particular case, though, it would cause some impartiality problems–in violation of another part of the Sixth Amendment. In any case, it would be much easier just to put that part of the park in the District of Idaho before any crimes occur. Then they could just have any trials in Pocatello and all would be well.
Two problems with that. First, the state has consented to this arrangement–it is a matter of federal-state agreement, enshrined in federal and state statutes. Second, there are lots of places where the feds have exclusive jurisdiction, and it has always held up in court before.
If the feds and the state agreed after a crime to undo this arrangement, in an attempt to give the state criminal jurisdiction retroactively, they would face solid arguments that it would be an Ex Post Facto, Bill of Attainder, and/or Due Process violation.
See also U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17 (giving Congress the authority to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over “over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings”).
OK, I was just about to ask about the possibility of jurors establishing residency in the area as needed. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that you’d already thought of that.
And as an aside, this is one of the things that makes this board great, when we’re discussing someone’s ideas, and that someone shows up to contribute to the discussion themself.
Professor Kalt, nice to get the information from the horse’s mouth. I posited earlier in the thread that Congress could not retroactively modify the borders of the District of Wyoming, because the composition of the jury is a substantive issue even if venue is typically a procedural matter. My grounding in criminal law and procedure is limited to law school and the bar exam, though, and in civil procedure the line between procedural and substantive law is somewhat blurry. Do you see an ex post facto problem there?
To expand on this a bit further, the national parks were largely created in territory which was not yet a state; the federal government generally made the territory’s cession of sovereignty (or at least jurisdiction) over the park areas was a condition of statehood in each case. For example, Yellowstone was created in 1872 and Wyoming, Idaho and Montana were admitted to the Union in 1889-1890.
The only outliers I’m aware of are the parks in California, which were established after statehood; the State of California largely ceded the land in the same way, but reserved some jurisdiction (mostly for taxing purposes) and the federal government seems to have accepted its reservation.
Ignore my ex post facto question. I see it was addressed in post 100.
Why accept a concession from the prosecution, when the law as currently written prevents a prosecution at all (at least one where a conviction will be upheld on appeal)? As a defendant, it makes much more sense to insist on proper venue and a proper jury pool.
Remember, the government writes the law. It has exclusive authority to change it. If the law impedes a prosecution, Congress should have written it better.
How long would somebody have to live there to be eligible to serve on a jury? Could somebody set up something like a Burning Man-type festival and select jurors from the residents that are living there for the duration?
Federal jurors must have resided for one year in the district. They don’t necessarily have to live there full time but they have to establish a domicile there, which you can’t do in a national park.
Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio was only made a National Park in the past decade or two, though it was already federal land before that (it used to be a National Recreation Area). I’m not sure what its jurisdictional status is, though. There are a few other National Parks east of the Mississippi that probably also postdate statehood.
EDIT: Ooh, another idea for a retroactive solution: I think we’ve already established that trimming down the Wyoming District to just the state wouldn’t work, because it was still the district the crime took place in. But suppose that Congress instead expanded the Wyoming District after a crime? Make it big enough to encompass some suitable already-populated town in Idaho. Then, it’s still the district of Wyoming and the state of Idaho, and there are valid jurors living in that district-state combination.
The one-year requirement is a matter of statute, though, so theoretically it could be changed. And you can live in a national park–people live in the Montana portion–but it’s typically park employees, and that could complicate their impartiality.
The Sixth Amendment says “an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” In other words, you can’t play around with the district lines retroactively in an attempt to “get” a particular defendant.
More to the point, though, why not just fix the district lines before a crime instead of waiting until after one?
Game theory. There’s a good chance that despite the way that Article reads, a Federal appeals court will find some way to nail you. Even if it’s just by giving you the maximum sentence for crimes related to the murder done outside that zone.
So if the prosecution offers, say, 5 years at minimum security for the crime first degree murder, and maybe drops the actual charge to manslaughter or something, you’d be a fool not to take it. I assume that’s what happened in this poaching case - the deal must have been pretty good.
Even if you’re innocent, it’s still a sweet deal. Even if innocent, if they do find a way to charge you and empanel a jury, you’re facing life in prison (in maximum security). So it’s a guaranteed sentence of 5 years in a place that has daily bed checks, no fence, and athletic fields, versus your whole life gone if a jury decides to believe whatever story the Federal prosecutors paint and gives you the outcome that 96% of people in your situation get.
BrianKalt, is the actual facility (or security level for) you’re sentenced to part of the Federal plea bargain process? There was a case recently where the judge gave more than the max agreed to in the bargain.
Because legislators are lazy procrastinators and won’t make any effort to fix a problem until it’s staring them right in the face, of course. I mean, yeah, they should fix it now, but it’s pretty well established that they probably won’t.
I posited earlier in the thread that Congress could not retroactively modify the borders of the District of Wyoming, because the composition of the jury is a substantive issue even if venue is typically a procedural matter. My grounding in criminal law and procedure is limited to law school and the bar exam, though, and in civil procedure the line between procedural and substantive law is somewhat blurry. Do you see an ex post facto problem there?