Well obviously you need to get your victim to meet you in the park. No doubt you sent them a letter claiming to be a Nigerian prince and that if they’ll meet you there and bring $1000 then you’ll transfer $10 million into their checking account. Now how to involve the Mann act?
Hm, just what constitutes “a crime”? Is murder one crime, that comes in various degrees, or is “first degree murder” a separate crime from “second degree murder”? Because if it’s the latter, then one could argue that premeditation, like the act of killing someone, is an element of the crime of first-degree murder, and that the perpetrator is subject to the jurisdiction of any locality where he committed any element of the crime.
I had read that wire fraud was “catch all” and pretty much any time the Feds come for you, they can get you for wire fraud.
Apparently, though, you have to lie about money in some way. If you murder someone, in order for it to be wire fraud there would have to be a financial motive as well, and they have to prove you communicated this financial offer by a telecommunication device.
So, yes, if you text them and offer them $10,000 to go off trail in Yellowstone with you, and you don’t actually pay the $10,000, they might have a case. Ironically, it seems that if you paid up (so you were not committing fraud) and then murdered them right after, you might in fact not be guilty of wire fraud.
It’s early and I don’t have a cite, but isn’t murder (and other crimes) generally punishable where any of the elements are met?
So, if we are sitting on a beach in Florida, and you decide that you have had enough of my conservative rantings, so you say, “Ultravires, old buddy, you know what would be fun? A hiking trip in the Idaho section of Yellowstone!”
I agree and we meet up there a month later and you kill me. IIRC, the State of Florida could prosecute you for murder because the premeditation, deliberation and a portion of the luring me to the place of the murder occurred in the physical boundaries of Florida.
Of course, this wouldn’t apply if we were already, for some other reason, inside this area when the intent arose, but with it being such a remote area, the chance of the entire crime being confined to that area is vanishingly small.
I believe to qualify as wire fraud you have to be trying to deprive the victim of some sort of property. So offering them money and then failing to give them money wouldn’t qualify.
No, but offering them money to do something or refrain from something they have the right to do (such as traveling to Yellowstone) might.
This seems to vary by state, but the rule in Florida specifically is that jurisdiction exists only if essential elements of the crime occurred in Florida.
[QUOTE=Lane v. Florida]
The general rule developed from the common law and expressed in most statutes in this country is that a homicide is committed in the state where the fatal wound or blow was inflicted though the deceased died in another state…
By section 910.005, we have broadened our jurisdiction to allow the trial of the homicide offense when the death occurs in the state or when an essential element of the homicide occurs in Florida even though the fatal blow was struck outside the state…
…We recognize that this holding grants to the State of Florida broader jurisdiction than many of our other sister states, but we find it is allowed by the United States Constitution and has been directed by the legislature of this state. This broader jurisdiction nonetheless requires that the prosecution establish beyond a reasonable doubt that essential elements of the offense were committed within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida.
In the instant case that would mean establishing either that the premeditation to murder the victim was formulated in the State of Florida or that the underlying felony, in this case the robbery, occurred in the State of Florida.
[/QUOTE]
So in your particular scenario, the premeditation in Florida is sufficient to confer jurisdiction. Sorry about murdering you, by the way, but it was a lovely hike.
You are correct that it is a remote and not-much-visited part of the park. But people do go there. There are some campsites in it. One of the best things about the C.J. Box novel, Free Fire, was that C.J. Box knows the park like the back of his hand–he had spent time in the Idaho portion, knew what it was like, who went there, etc.–so he was able to produce a plausible (to me) scenario.
Is that quote missing a “not”, or did you mean to say that the premeditation is an essential element?
Sorry, didn’t read the whole thread. But wanted to toss this in.
My job used to take me into federal courtrooms quite often. I remember one time some schmuck was the subject of a hearing for some pretty minor offense - maybe speeding or DUI. Far from offenses committed in Nat’l Parks not being prosecutable, instead, they are federal offenses.
Hard to believe the fed gov’t would punish offenses like speeding, and let murder slide.
Since there’s nothing like this happening in this situation, it’s not especially relevant to the thread. The fed gov’t isn’t choosing or not choosing to prosecute anything.
The latter.
They’re not “letting it slide.” They are prohibited from prosecuting (in this one very limited set of circumstances).
Professor Kalt, have you ever had any response back from federal Justice or Congress folks about why they don’t see a need to fix this? Any rationale that they’ve produced to try to rebut your argument?
I have gotten a few answers, which if I interpret charitably I can put into three categories:
-
They don’t think crimes will occur. It’s a remote area and there hasn’t been significant crime in the past. It’s hard to pass laws, so they don’t want to make an effort when the benefit would be so minimal.
-
They don’t think the courts would agree with me. They think that the courts will do a “harmless error” analysis (which is ridiculous for multiple reasons) or will interpret the Sixth Amendment in a way that this literal violation of it can be brushed off.
-
They don’t want to put any part of the park into the Districts of Idaho and Wyoming, because they want the park to remain entirely in the 10th Circuit. If part of the park is in the 9th Circuit (which includes Idaho and Montana), environmentalist groups challenging park management could get their case in that more liberal court. That is easy enough to prevent, though, simply by limiting venue in administrative appeals to the 10th Circuit (the Sixth Amendment is irrelevant in civil cases anyway). And such cases have been filed in the 9th Circuit already, so if anything passing a new law would help on this score more than it would hurt.
I can see an argument that they want all of Yellowstone to be within a single Circuit for environmental and civil matters. But to do that, couldn’t Congress provide that Yellowstone is in Wyoming Federal District for all purposes except criminal matters, and that the Idaho portion is in Idaho Federal District for all criminal matters? A bit unusual, but court boundaries can be adjusted to take into account geography for other purposes.
No right to a jury for a speeding trial.
Simpler would be just to make the district lines follow the state lines and then specify the local venue for administrative-law cases in the District of Wyoming and the Tenth Circuit. Venue gets nailed down like that all the time (though usually in DC). Easy and no constitutional implications.
The real test would be to get a cabin in the strip and start moonshinin’
I’ve heard that there are already a lot of illegal marijuana farms on federal land, far from inhabited areas and prying eyes (though presumably not in this particular strip).
Yeah, I’ve heard that, too.
But unless you were going to grow it from wild seeds you found on that strip of land and smoke it all there, they’ve got you on possession, if not more, in other districts.
Somehow Manuel Noriega got busted on US drug charges for his actions in Panama. And I don’t think he was tried by a jury of Panamanians.
The Sixth Amendment requirement of a local jury only applies if you are in a state. An excerpt from the article:
In 1888, a group of murderers killed four people in what is now the Oklahoma panhandle, but what was then—owing to sloppy legislating—a No Man’s Land that was part of no state, and assigned to no federal district court. The killers apparently thought that this would make it impossible to prosecute them, but they were wrong: After the massacre, Congress assigned the No Man’s Land to the Eastern District of Texas, retroactively. The killers protested that this violated Article III and the Sixth Amendment.
In Cook v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the killers’ arguments, but it did so in a way that tees up our present crime spree opportunity. The Cook Court reasoned that Article III sets federal venue in the state of the crime, and the Sixth Amendment refines that provision by requiring that the jurors be from the right district in the state, defined ex ante. But if a crime is not in any state, then the remainder of Article III, Section 2 applies: “[T]he Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” In such cases, the Court reasoned, the Sixth Amendment’s refinements do not apply because the Amendment refers explicitly to a “state.”