Posted on 05/13/2005 1:12:13 AM PDT by andie74
A loophole in US law may allow people to get away with any major crime within a 50-square mile "zone of death" in eastern Idaho, according to a Michigan law professor.
This lawless oasis is said to exist on the edge of Yellowstone National Park because of a poorly drafted statute in the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Criminals are entitled to be tried by a jury drawn from the state and legal district they committed their crime in, the constitution says.
But, argues Prof Brian C Kalt, while Yellowstone comes entirely under the district of Wyoming, small parts of it spill into the states of Montana and Idaho.
"Say that you are in the Idaho portion of Yellowstone and you decide to spice up your vacation by going on a crime spree," Kalt writes in a forthcoming paper for the Georgetown Law Journal.
"You make some moonshine, you poach some wildlife, you strangle some people and steal their picnic baskets."
"The jury would have to be drawn from the Idaho portion of Yellowstone which, according to the 2000 Census has a population of precisely zero." - Prof Brian C Kalt
"You are arrested, arraigned in the park and bound over for trial in Cheyenne, Wyoming, before a jury drawn from the Cheyenne area.
"But Article III [Section 2] plainly requires that the trial be held in Idaho, the state in which the crime was committed.
"Perhaps if you fuss convincingly enough about it the case would be sent to Idaho.
"But the Sixth Amendment then requires that the jury be from the state - Idaho - and the district - Wyoming - in which the crime was committed.
"In other words, the jury would have to be drawn from the Idaho portion of Yellowstone which, according to the 2000 Census has a population of precisely zero.
"Assuming that you do not feel like consenting to trial in Cheyenne, you should go free."
English loophole
No criminal defendant has ever broached the subject of the professor's loophole.
And there may be one or two holes, he admits.
It would be hard to limit your criminality to the specific area - meaning you could face conspiracy charges from the state you entered the park from.
Equally you could be charged with lesser offences that do not warrant a jury trial.
"The courts may or may not agree that my loophole exists," he says. "And in any case this essay is not intended to inspire anyone to go out and commit crimes.
"Crime is bad, after all. But so is violating the Constitution.
"If the loophole does exist it should be closed, not ignored."
Criminals have got away with murder before in England, the professor says, but not since 1548 when the law was changed.
Before then it often happened that a killer would strike in one county, but avoid punishment by ensuring the victim died across the county line, he says.
English juries could only consider crimes that occurred in their own county, so no jury could find the killer had committed all elements of murder.
just damn
Yogi bear doesn't have to steal my picnic basket, i'd be happy to share.
Self-ping for later.
The Jury would be drawn from Idaho, or montana or new york. Its a federal crime on federal lands, which means the only jurisdictional unit that matters is the United States.
Federal criminals are often tried in places far from the crime scene.
I spoze the good Professor thinks that since D.C. is not in ANY state that you could have the Mayor smoking crack and still be in office.
Oh, wait a minute....
Well, if the laws don't apply, why can't Ranger Smith just take out his trusty sidearm and go for a little picnic-basket stealin' justice?
Of all the constructive things to ponder...
Prof Brian C Kalt<<<
Wouldn't be surprised to see that name again, in connection with some sort of oblique lawlessness.
The BBC are looking into new horizons of America-bashing, Isee.
Too bad the portion of Idaho that falls in the Park is very small, has no roads, and is rarely visited.
But think of the havoc that could be wreaked! Animals endangered, trees carved, pristine streams polluted, doobies rolled...
Okay, well, we'll forget the doobies THIS time...provided you share a toke with the spotted owl...and various law professors who frequent the area for ground-breaking career bolsters that only the British are interested in.
Because RS lives on 'gubamint cheese and it's clogged his firing pin.
Amendment VI -In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
The good professor is wrong... this is NOT a constitutional question at all... it is merely a matter of law. As noted in the Sixth Amendment itself, the district is ascertained by law, not the Constitution.
Most states have defined "Districts" to be the various sub-units called counties (Parishes in Louisiana)... and hence an accused person will have the right to be tried by a jury of his peers from the county where the crime occurred, prosecuted by the District Attorney for that county.
He seems to be under the misapprehension that Yellowstone has its own District Attorney, its own court system, its own judges. It does not. Yellowstone is a Federal enclave and the district that applies is the Federal District court for that area where the crime occurred. For example, if the crime occurred in the populationless area of Yellowstone that is in Idaho, the Federal District Court for Idaho would draw jurors from the entire state of Idaho and the case would be prosecuted by the US Attorney for the Idaho district.
You're mostly right except for the part about the roads. I know because I transited the park on my way from Virginia to Washington State two years ago and took a road than exited the park AFTER you cross the Idaho line.
Now if I can just talk someone into going to Yellowstone with me...
Being a law professor is good. Getting my name in the media is much, much better.
Evidently this "expert" has never heard of a petition for change of venue. While usually filed by the defense because of local bias against the defendant, it may also be invoked by the state if, say, the district in which it took place had no residents. Defense counsel couldn't very well fight it, since it would invalidate the whole due process, and the accused's right to a speedy trial.
I don't think that's quite right.. the problem is that the federal judicial district of Wyoming encompasses all of Yellowstone, including the Idaho part. So the Wyoming district has jurisdiction over the trial. I'm not saying that this guy is right, necessarily. i have no idea.
I don't think that's quite right.. the problem is that the federal judicial district of Wyoming encompasses all of Yellowstone, including the Idaho part. So the Wyoming district has jurisdiction over the trial. I'm not saying that this guy is right, necessarily. i have no idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.