Fezmid Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Interesting article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4529829.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Interesting article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4529829.stm Hmmmmmmmm, wanna go camping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) How could the 6th Amendment be "poorly worded" according to this loophole, when it was ratified before 1791 with the Bill of Rights.... and the National Parks weren't created until the Theo. Roosevelt administration near the turn of the 20th century? It would then be a failure of the parks bill to not allow for a viable means of prosecution for crimes committed w/in the parks at the nearest feasible court. Is this prof just working off of the wording of the Constitution and extending a geographical quirk into a pretty shallowly-researched hypothetical? This would suggest so. NPS Law Enforcement or the FBI (or, this section reads, the Sec't of the Interior can appoint pretty much any enforcement division s/he chooses to) have jurisdiction in the parks, and they can cooperate with state and local enforcement. So, if crimes are investigated by federal enforcement, wouldn't they be prosecuted in federal court --- the 10th Circuit covers all of Yellowstone, even across the state borders --- since it happened on federally-administered property? I found the link above in about 30 seconds, so I'm sure there's a lot more detail on it. I would be a little surprised if something like the establishment of criminal jurisdiction isn't mentioned somewhere in the totality of the parks bill. Edited March 19, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 So in summation, a crime committed in a jurisdiction without a potential jury pool is not a crime. His argument is completely retarded, if only for ignoring the LONG history of changes of venue for trials in the event of a lack of a suitable jury pool... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Further.... Criminal jurisdiction: U.S. Federal Courts Examples of crimes that are based on areas owned by or under the exclusive control of the federal government include crimes committed in the District of Columbia, in U.S. Territories, in U.S. National Parks, in federal courthouses and federal prisons, and aboard airplanes (regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration) and ocean-going vessels. The United States military has its own criminal justice system applicable to its members, but civilians may be charged with a federal crime for acts committed on military bases. Federal courts can also assert jurisdiction to hear cases brought against U.S. citizens based on their illegal activities in other countries. This professor is a sh--head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Road Trip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted March 19, 2011 Author Share Posted March 19, 2011 Further.... This professor is a sh--head. I kind of figured as much, but I still thought it was an amusing read. Surprised nobody's asked how I stumbled upon it to begin with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBill Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Surprised nobody's asked how I stumbled upon it to begin with... OK I'll bite ... are you planning to off the neighbor and looking for a place to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) I kind of figured as much, but I still thought it was an amusing read. Surprised nobody's asked how I stumbled upon it to begin with... Looking at it again, I can see the point. But he's still a sh--head. Here's an actual case of an elk poacher in the Montana section. Congress created the park in 1872, and admitted Montana, Idaho and Wyoming into the Union in 1889 and 1890. But Congress put the entire park under Wyoming's federal jurisdiction, which was incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, according to Brian C. Kalt's article "The Perfect Crime" published in the January 2005 Georgetown Law Journal. The Sixth Amendment guarantees "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and the district wherein the crime shall have been committed." Article III Section 2 of the Constitution requires the federal government to try offenders in the state where a crime allegedly occurred. So, he committed the crime in Montana, was tried and convicted in Wyoming federal court. The appeals judge in this case acknowledged the conundrum, and then basically told the defendant 'tough sh--.' Unless it's taken up by the Supreme Court, which is highly unlikely, the Congressional bill stands and this case serves as an established precedent of jurisdiction for all Yellowstone cases to be tried in Wyoming federal court. Even if this poaching case or a theoretical murder case were taken up by the Supremes and overturned, the solution would ostensibly be to move for a change of venue as DC Tom wrote, which most any judge will grant, and try in either a Montana or Idaho court. Edited March 20, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Man... UConn and DC have to wreck everything! Jeeze... Where is man gonna murder anymore? On a Carnival cruise... That is no fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts