4 ms·

> And being federal land, the state would have no jurisdiction. Can that be right? It still occurred within Idaho, even if it was on land owned by the federal

> And being federal land, the state would have no jurisdiction. Can that be right? It still occurred within Idaho, even if it was on land owned by the federal government. I want to see a case on point before I go killing people.

ghaff 10y ago
It depends how you interpret this (and IANAL): The Yellowstone National Park, as its boundaries now are defined, or as they may be hereafter defined or extended, shall be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. All the laws applicable to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, shall have force and effect in said park. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to forbid the service in the park of any civil or criminal process of any court having jurisdiction in the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. All fugitives from justice taking refuge in said park shall be subject to the same laws as refugees from justice found in the State of Wyoming. And then you also get into issues around juries, etc. It's a unique situation (hence why it was an article). I don't actually believe anyone would get off with this sort of "technicality" but it is a real corner case.
- monochromatic 10y ago
  Yeah, I saw that too. I guess I have no idea what it means to be "under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States." I wonder if that clause (or anything like it) has ever really been litigated.
  - ghaff 10y ago
    I think it's probably one of those weirdo cases that makes for good movies and books but, in practice, you get arrested and the judge laughs at your creative defense and orders you remanded without bail. (And it's not even wrong because law != code.)
    - aetherson 10y ago
      I mean... maybe. Judges do have a certain amount of discretion and ability to interpret. But they are also supposed to stay within the law, and not just go to "well, this seems like the right thing to do." If a Judge wanted to ignore this and seat a jury from... where? Somewhere else in Idaho? Then they'd probably at least need to advance a theory for why they got to do that in their response to your motion. Now, as others have pointed out, unless you could plausibly assert that the crime was wholly and totally contained within the zone of death, and you didn't plan it outside the area or purchase items with the intent to use them in the crime or so forth, there is existing precedent to use that place as a venue for the crime. But we're talking about a Constitutional right in terms of jury seating. Judges don't get to just wave their hands and say, "Well, the Constitution is dumb, so we won't do that." If they do, it's likely to get overturned on appeal. (I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; don't commit felonies)
  - protomyth 10y ago
    https://www.justice.gov/usao-wy/criminal-division/violations-yellowstone-and-grand-teton-national-parks-and-other-federal-enclaves https://www.justice.gov/usao-wy/criminal-division/violations... Its a federal enclave and you get charged under federal law in the closest federal court. Other than federal enclaves, if you are not a tribal member a lot of crimes on reservations are handled by the federal court system. You get to deal with Federal Marshals and the FBI.

ghaff 10y ago

It depends how you interpret this (and IANAL): The Yellowstone National Park, as its boundaries now are defined, or as they may be hereafter defined or extended, shall be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. All the laws applicable to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, shall have force and effect in said park. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to forbid the service in the park of any civil or criminal process of any court having jurisdiction in the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. All fugitives from justice taking refuge in said park shall be subject to the same laws as refugees from justice found in the State of Wyoming. And then you also get into issues around juries, etc. It's a unique situation (hence why it was an article). I don't actually believe anyone would get off with this sort of "technicality" but it is a real corner case.

monochromatic 10y ago
Yeah, I saw that too. I guess I have no idea what it means to be "under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States." I wonder if that clause (or anything like it) has ever really been litigated.
- ghaff 10y ago
  I think it's probably one of those weirdo cases that makes for good movies and books but, in practice, you get arrested and the judge laughs at your creative defense and orders you remanded without bail. (And it's not even wrong because law != code.)
  - aetherson 10y ago
    I mean... maybe. Judges do have a certain amount of discretion and ability to interpret. But they are also supposed to stay within the law, and not just go to "well, this seems like the right thing to do." If a Judge wanted to ignore this and seat a jury from... where? Somewhere else in Idaho? Then they'd probably at least need to advance a theory for why they got to do that in their response to your motion. Now, as others have pointed out, unless you could plausibly assert that the crime was wholly and totally contained within the zone of death, and you didn't plan it outside the area or purchase items with the intent to use them in the crime or so forth, there is existing precedent to use that place as a venue for the crime. But we're talking about a Constitutional right in terms of jury seating. Judges don't get to just wave their hands and say, "Well, the Constitution is dumb, so we won't do that." If they do, it's likely to get overturned on appeal. (I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; don't commit felonies)
- protomyth 10y ago
  https://www.justice.gov/usao-wy/criminal-division/violations-yellowstone-and-grand-teton-national-parks-and-other-federal-enclaves https://www.justice.gov/usao-wy/criminal-division/violations... Its a federal enclave and you get charged under federal law in the closest federal court. Other than federal enclaves, if you are not a tribal member a lot of crimes on reservations are handled by the federal court system. You get to deal with Federal Marshals and the FBI.