Then those limits need to be legislated to match those of murder. A lifetime statute. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t. I realize it’s too late now, and that really sucks.
I wonder how long this monster will survive once released? Prison’s probably the safest place for him.
Pennsylvania never knew that a crime had been committed in their state. The victim called police from her home; Maryland cops arrested Kroll and he went to court in Maryland. Pennsylvania was never notified of a crime.
Correct. The court has ruled that Kroll has been imprisoned ilegally for ten years.
Washington Post article on this crap.
Thanks, Bricker. But I’m still not clear on one question. By voluntarily leaving Pennsylvania’s jurisdiction when he drove back to Maryland, didn’t he stop the statute of limitations clock? I’ve heard of criminals from other states being tried for crimes beyond the limit because they had left the jurisdiction. Is this something that varies from state to state? Or am I just confused?
It seems the original court made a very basic mistake of law.
I disagree. I see no problem whatsoever with a state punishing a person for a crime that took place, in part, within its own borders.
If a defendant kidnapped a victim in Texas, but killed the victim in Vermont, I have no problem whatsoever with Texas convicting the defendant of murder. In such cases, the jurisdiction is concurrent, not exclusive.
I’ll wait for the Law & Order episode to explain it for me.
OK, as I have displayed in other threads, I have no knowledge of law, but isn’t there some kind of continuation allowance, seeing as how this guy abducted the girl in Maryland? Isn’t the assault a part of that same crime and punishable by Maryland courts?
No sympathy for this asshole.
- Make child abduction/rape a federal crime - no jurisdictional bs to contend with.
- Make law retroactive.
I’m pretty sure the phrase ‘ex post facto’ would come into play there.
Too bad they can’t come up with some way to try him for violating her civil rights, the way they did with the cops who beat up Rodney King.
I think this points up a difference in understanding between lawyers and laypeople. Lawyers don’t mean the same thing, exactly, as laymen when they talk about “innocence”. Laymen who say someone is “innocent” mean that the person didn’t do it. Lawyers mean that it couldn’t be established beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it, and there were no technical violations of the law in achieveing that verdict either.
It’s one of the confusing things I encounter in talking about the death penalty (sorry if this is a hijack). If this Kroll person had been executed, no doubt anti-DP folks would be talking about the injustice of the execution - but not because he didn’t do it. He would have been “innocent” in the legal sense, but non-lawyer types like myself would not be overly concerned if he had been executed.
Which, of course, constitutes a temptation to bypass the legal system and try to bring about justice thru vigilante action. Which has its own set of problems, no doubt, but is intended for the same ends as the legal system.
Regards,
Shodan
The federal civil rights statutes under which the cops in the King case were prosecuted only applies to government agents acting under the “color of the law.” This guy was not wearing a uniform or operating in any governmental capacity. The statute does not apply to civilians.
It depends on how the crime of kidnapping is defined. If you have a continuing offense that’s aggravated by sexual assault (or murder) then, as you say, the jurisdiction where the crime began can charge the whole shebang.
If not… then you’re stuck.
Item 1 is an example of the implictly un-Constitutional (there is no authority granted by the Constutition for the Federal government to make law in this area). Item 2 is an example of the explicitly un-Constitutional (as it would violate the clause prohibiting ex post facto laws).
Isn’t that exactly what happened in the OP? Bad guy kidnaps girl in Maryland, rapes her in Pennsylvania, and pleads guilty to the sexual assault back in Maryland.
Don’t be too sure. The Commerce Clause could cover it.
But Maryland’s 1970 kidnapping law didn’t include elements for sexual assault. He completed the crime of kidnapping in Maryland.
So what? The sexual assault occurred during the course of the kidnapping, which was begun in Maryland. In those circumstances, Maryland should legitimately be able to punish the perpetrator for a course of criminal conduct that began in Maryland.
Under what legal theory, precisely? The kidnap statute made no mention of assault. It’s a separate crime. If he had robbed a store in Pennsylvania while he had the girl in captivity, does Maryland have jurisdiction? How about if he stole a roll of duct tape from a Pennsylvania store and used it to bind the girl after they arrived in the state?
There was a huge mistake in this case, yes, but it wasn’t forgetting to argue that Maryland actually had jurisdiction. If this were a viable argument, don’t you think they’d be making it now that they’re desperately trying to keep this monster locked up? If your view is correct, then the court HAD jurisdiction, and Kroll’s appeal is moot.
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.