2 ms·
Interesting. Now I have to add this paper to my reading list. My immediate curiosity is why our purported murderer couldn't be brought up on charges to conspi
by phil21 6y ago
Interesting. Now I have to add this paper to my reading list.
My immediate curiosity is why our purported murderer couldn't be brought up on charges to conspire to commit murder/transit state lines in the commission of a crime/etc.
It'd seem from my layman's perspective you'd almost have to simply have a crime of passion (or at least no premeditation outside this zone) happen - e.g. a pair camping in this area of the park and one murdering the other in a fit of rage.
- giantg2 6y agoMy guess is the feds would say that because no one lives in that state within that district, that the defendant's rights would not be prejudiced by using other people in the jury since the defendant themselves are not from that area. I disagree with this on the basis that rule of law needs to be followed. The government can't expect people to telepathically know what the laws are. People only know what they are based on what is documented. Basically ignorance of the law should be an excuse if one could not have known the law or the law clearly stated something that supported their position, like in the elk case.