# Molestor Johnny Kroll Gets Lucky **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831 "2005-05-07T17:13:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/41 "2005-05-10T16:11:46Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > My own. I do not contest the legal analysis. But if I were the state, under these circumstances, I’d go all the way to the Supreme Court to establish that jurisdiction should exist over a crime that occurred in another state during the course of an ongoing crime that began in the first. It would be an eminently sensible rule that works no harm to comity. Well, I think you’d have an easy time if the state had codified the rule ahead of time. If a statue purported to extend a state’s jurisdiction in such circumstances (with some reasonable rules about nexus of the remote crime to the predicate crime) I think it would pass Constitutional muster. But trying for it here, absent an existing statute, would be tricky; even if the Court agreed that the rule had prospective effect, it would amount to a new rule of law, and under _Teague_ it wouldn’t be retroactive. But I agree it should be as you say. This whole cock-up sickens me. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/42 "2005-05-10T21:14:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I think you’d have an easy time if the state had codified the rule ahead of time. If a statue purported to extend a state’s jurisdiction in such circumstances (with some reasonable rules about nexus of the remote crime to the predicate crime) I think it would pass Constitutional muster. Why do you need a statute to establish criminal jurisdiction? I doubt there was anything on the books in Maryland saying that the state could not prosecute crimes committed, in whole or in part, in another state. So why do they need one that says they do have that power. Also, re: a point you made above, it occurs to me that the “without consent” element of the crime of sexual assault was probably fulfilled, at least in part, by the kidnapping that began in Maryland. So if you think jurisdiction requires an element of sexual assault to have occurred in Maryland, there you have it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/43 "2005-05-10T22:42:58Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Why do you need a statute to establish criminal jurisdiction? I doubt there was anything on the books in Maryland saying that the state could not prosecute crimes committed, in whole or in part, in another state. So why do they need one that says they do have that power. Because Maryland Code § 1-501 confers jurisdiction on circuit courts as to “…all civil and criminal cases within [their] county.” And _expressio unius est exclusivo alterius_. > [@](#): > > Also, re: a point you made above, it occurs to me that the “without consent” element of the crime of sexual assault was probably fulfilled, at least in part, by the kidnapping that began in Maryland. So if you think jurisdiction requires an element of sexual assault to have occurred in Maryland, there you have it. Now THAT is an interesting theory. Off the top of my head, I don’t see a flaw (well, I mean it’s a stretch, but it’s a LOGICAL stretch). I might give Mike Twigg a call and see if he thinks it’s too crazy. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/44 "2005-05-11T01:59:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because Maryland Code § 1-501 confers jurisdiction on circuit courts as to “…all civil and criminal cases within [their] county.” Yeah, but that just gets you back to the notion that they can hold a guy responsible for all parts of an crime that took place in part within the county. Unless you’re suggesting that unless all elements of a crime occurred in one Maryland county, the perpetrator could not be charged in any county. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/45 "2005-05-11T02:52:32Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Yeah, but that just gets you back to the notion that they can hold a guy responsible for all parts of an crime that took place in part within the county. Unless you’re suggesting that unless all elements of a crime occurred in one Maryland county, the perpetrator could not be charged in any county. No… but NO element of the crime of sexual assault took place in Maryland. (Unless we credit your idea about the force used in Maryland establishing the lack of consent or force element of the assault). ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/46 "2005-05-12T01:44:55Z")
What about the Mann act? Was that law repealed? Does it have a statute of limitations? ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/47 "2005-05-12T04:36:00Z")
I have no idea whether the Mann Act was or is still in effect, nor whether the defendant’s actions would have fulfilled the elements of that offense. But the point is legally moot, given that he was not charged under the Mann Act. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/48 "2005-05-12T16:16:00Z")
But the Mann act is federal offense; hence state jurisdiction is moot. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/49 "2005-05-12T16:26:52Z")
State and federal criminal jurisdiction are generally concurrent, not exclusive. The Mann Act, even if it still exists, is moot because the offense occurred 25 years ago, presumably far too long for any statute of limitations. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/50 "2005-05-12T16:38:36Z")
The Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421 _et seq._, although amended several times since its passage in 1910, is still good law. It basically forbids the interstate transport of any person for the purpose of sexual activity would be a criminal offense under a federal or state statute or local ordinance. As Minty says, since the crime was committed in the 1980s, the statute of limitations would bar prosecution now. He certainly _could have_ been federally prosecuted at the time, but was not. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/51 "2005-05-12T19:22:10Z")
Geez, who’s the snotstain that’s his defense lawyer? I wish that particular monster ill as well. To defend a case like this and get your client off - that ain’t right. Requires a special breed Question (I’m a little light on the law): he pled guilty. So where does he get the right to appeal? Do those who plead guilty have the right to appeal? Or is this a “new evidence” clause? If it is a “new evidence” clause, can’t the prosecution use that fact as well (even though I suppose the testimony is pretty damning on that front)? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/52 "2005-05-12T19:49:02Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > Geez, who’s the snotstain that’s his defense lawyer? I wish that particular monster ill as well. To defend a case like this and get your client off - that ain’t right. Requires a special breed This being GD and not the Pit, I’ll simply point out that you seem to be unclear on the role defense lawyers play in our legal system. > [@](#): > > Question (I’m a little light on the law): he pled guilty. So where does he get the right to appeal? Do those who plead guilty have the right to appeal? Or is this a “new evidence” clause? If it is a “new evidence” clause, can’t the prosecution use that fact as well (even though I suppose the testimony is pretty damning on that front)? In general, you’re right. A guilty plea usually means you give up the right to challenge the evidence against you, or the sentence imposed upon you. But there are some - few - exceptions. A guilty plea typically represents a bargain. If, for example, you agree to plead guilty and the prosecutor agrees to recommend leniency, and then you arrive at sentencing hearing to hear the prosecutor say, “Throw the book at this low-life, judge; give him the max and then some!” you may well be able to withdraw your plea, because the prosecution breached its agreement with you, and it was that agreement that induced you to plead guilty in the first place. What happened here is even rarer. One right a guilty plea does NOT waive is the right to challenge jurisdiction. If the court that sentenced you had no jurisdiction over the crime you committed, the enitre process: plea, conviction, and sentence are all illegal. The right to appealing a jurisdictional error does not expire and cannot be waived. This is NOT “new evidence.” Let me draw the distinction: Let’s assume that during the original trial, there was testimony that the crime took place in Maryland. Then, years later, the victim writes a book about her experience. The imprisoned convict reads the book and realizes that she is describing a locale that’s in Pennsylvania. Now we have a conflict in a question of fact. There was evidence, which the trial court believed, that placed the crime in Maryland… and now there is NEW evidence that contradicts the original evidence. Depending on the laws of Maryland, he may, or may not, be able to present that evidence, and a judge would rule on it. If the judge found that this new evidence was admissible, and compelling, he might order a new trial, at which the new evidence could be heard and evaluated by a jury. That’s how an appeal based on new evidence might go. Here, there was never any old evidence! In other words, the court never heard any piece of evidence to prove that the crime happened in Maryland. It was just never offered. And all the evidence that DID exist would have shown the crime to be a Pennsylvania one. So the court’s implicit conclusion that the crime took place in Maryland was unjustified; there was nothing for the court to have relied upon to form that conclusion. Therefore, the court never had jurisdiction - it had no power to punish the assualt, because the assault took place in an entirely different state. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/53 "2005-05-12T20:08:45Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > Geez, who’s the snotstain that’s his defense lawyer? I wish that particular monster ill as well. To defend a case like this and get your client off - that ain’t right. Requires a special breed. Quite possibly his lawyer was appointed to him by the court to argue the case once the error came to light, although his obligation is the same even if he is being retained. Really, all the defense lawyer is doing is saying “look, this guy is being illegally held, and the letter of the law dictates that we have to let him go and that we can’t retry him. Sucks, but that’s the law.” On a personal level the defense attorney is probably not any happier about it than you are, but he didn’t create the problem. You can’t blame the guy for making the State follow the law, distasteful though it may be. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/54 "2005-05-13T15:52:15Z")
I think that what caused my “ick” is that someone, it seems, would have to go looking for this error in order for Kroll to be released, and that the act of looking for such a technicality even in the process of defending a client is distasteful. I fully realize that his lawyer was only doing his job - defending his client. But the guy did it, he admitted it, and getting him off because of a technicality pretty much blows. Takes the “justice” outta the system, you know? Anyway, moving on…can’t Pennsylvania try him for this crime, then? Pennsylvania didn’t know then, but they do know now, and it seems we can try people for old crimes (the BTK killer, Till’s murderers in Mississippi). Or is the statute of limitations up? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/55 "2005-05-13T16:31:06Z")
> [@Snickers](#): > > Anyway, moving on…can’t Pennsylvania try him for this crime, then? Pennsylvania didn’t know then, but they do know now, and it seems we can try people for old crimes (the BTK killer, Till’s murderers in Mississippi). Or is the statute of limitations up? There’s usually not a statute of limitations on murder, which is why you see BTK _et al_ coming up after many years. For sexual assault - no matter how heinous - there is a SOL problem. ---
**Author:** ![user\_hostile](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/user_hostile/32/474_2.png) [@user\_hostile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/user_hostile)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831/56 "2005-05-13T16:57:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2421 _et seq._, although amended several times since its passage in 1910, is still good law. > > It basically forbids the interstate transport of any person for the purpose of sexual activity would be a criminal offense under a federal or state statute or local ordinance. > > As Minty says, since the crime was committed in the 1980s, the statute of limitations would bar prosecution now. He certainly _could have_ been federally prosecuted at the time, but was not. **Minty** , thanks for clarifying what the act really is. My main knowledge was based on the skimpy informatin provided by “The Great White Hope” and “Zawbriski [sic] Point”. In the latter, the director brought in a bunch of extras out of state to perform a love making scene _en mass_ and apparently violated the Mann act. (I would assume this was one of the portions of the law that were amended.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/molestor-johnny-kroll-gets-lucky/302831.md?page=2)