If a Body Falls in a Federal Forest . . .
Do federal courts have general jurisdiction over murder and other crimes that occur within National Forests? Not being much of a crimlaw guy, I would have assumed the answer was "yes." In United States v. Gabrion, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confirms my intuition, holding that a murder on federal property in a national forest did occur within federal territorial jurisdiction, but also shows this is a more complicated question than I would have assumed. The three judge panel produced three opinions. Judge Batchelder delivered the opinion of the court, Judge Moore concurred in the judgment, and Judge Merritt dissented.
UPDATE: How Appealing has more here.
In one of his stories, he defends a man for murder committed on the grounds of an old army fort, long since returned to the control of the state. When the man was charged in state court, Tutt made a persuasive argument that for various technical reasons the fort was still technically federal soil, and thus the federal government was the only sovereign which could prosecute the man. Naturally, the local U.S. Attorney, following the dismissal of the charges by the state, brought charges in federal court. Whereupon, of course, Tutt promptly made an impassioned and compelling argument that the state court had erred in its ruling, and that only the state had jurisdiction over the territory within the defrocked army base.
As jeopardy had attached in both instances, the man was then released.
It generally depends on the agreement we've got with local authorities as well...but I'm surprised that the 6th Circuit came out this way.
I read that article; it's quite intriguing.
Living in Idaho, let me assure you that's a hard place in which to murder someone, unless of course you kidnap someone first in "regular" Idaho and drag them there. There are no towns in that sliver of Yellowstone: neither are there paved roads. You have to go through the small town of Warm River and go up Fish Creek Road until it connects with several unpaved roads that enter the park.
Professor Kalt’s article uncovered Yellowstone National Park’s “Zone of Death,” a 50-square-mile strip of land in the remote Idaho portion of the park that contains a potentially deadly loophole. The area sits in one state, but in the district of another, so the Sixth Amendment requires that any crime committed there must be tried before a jury drawn from that strip of land – but nobody lives there.
My solution would be for the prosecution to allow a group of 200 law and order types to temporarily take up residence in the strip of land and you have an instant jury pool.
A perfectly logical question that could easily apply to about 98% of federal criminal law. We got through most of U.S. history without having two parallel criminal law systems and we don't need one now.
Mike from C&F notes all the time, that where there is an ambiguity in a criminal case, the court will bend over backwards to affirm a conviction. This opinion is a perfect example. The simplicity and common-sense of the dissent is dwarfed, in column-inches, by the mental gymnastics needed to reason that in the absence of positive efforts by Congress to confirm subject matter jurisdiction in a criminal case, nevertheless it somehow exists here.
Amen. Go Big Red.
And to make the further point regarding separate "jurisdictions" and this interesting case-
Assuming the federal government can try someone for the same activity after a conviction in state court (separate sovereigns and all that) or vice versa - why does it matter whether he is prosecuted in federal court first or state court? If one or the other loses "jurisdiction" just move it to the other. Jeapordy attaching means dittley when no double jeapoardy argument can be successful.
The only possible thing in the way is statute of limitations - which is not applicable in murder cases anyway - but even if it were drug possession or something with a shorter limitation - the ct would likely say the limitations period was tolled while the def. sat around waiting for the first jurisdiction to try him. Etc Etc
And i have yet to hear solid reasoning behind the rule that convicting someone of murder or any other standard crime in state court and trying and convicting the defendant in fed ct for the same acts and crime is NOT being punished twice for the same act or being twice put in jeopardy.
Sorry for the rant - this particular subject irks me.
I certainly undertand your passion, but the reason that a person can be tried for the same offense in both state and federal courts (or in two state courts, for that matter) is that in our system each state and the federal government are all separate sovereigns--thus by killing someone in a national forest, you are offending the sovereign power of the United States as well as the sovereign power of the State of Michigan--which are quite separate.
To put it another way, if I conspire to kill someone in State A, kidnap that person in State A, and then take him or her to State B and kill that person there, why are not both State A and State B legitimately offended by my conduct and free to prosecute me for breaking their respective laws?
I share the earlier poster's concern. I don't doubt as a matter of law that double jeopardy doesn't prevent you from being prosecuted by the feds even after you're acquitted of the state offense, even where the state and federal offenses are substantially identical. Double jeopardy operates on a per sovereign basis. Nevertheless, there is something to me quite unseemly about a person tried and acquitted in state court for a state offense in a high profile case being subsequently prosecuted by the feds for the identical misconduct, often characterizing that identical misconduct as a violation of the civil rights of the victim in the state case. It's essentially a judicial do-over because the public (or their elected federal politicians) didn't like the result the first time around.
So we can link this to the other current thread on amending the constitution - I'll suggest we ought to amend the double jeopardy clause to provide some kind of protection to defendants in this kind of federal do-over situation. No, I can't come up with wording off the top of my head to type into this comment, but I think it's something that warrants attention.
Yes, if some third-party (who in some fashion had standing) contested the Federal jurisdiction, the fact that defendant had argued for it would be irrelevant.
Yes, if some third-party (who in some fashion had standing) contested the Federal jurisdiction, the fact that defendant had argued for it would be irrelevant.
Heck, the federal court can raise subject matter sua sponte and boot the case on that basis, regardless of what the parties want to argue. I seem to recall a recent 7th Circuit case where Easterbrook raised the issue, even though neither party had done so, then slapped counsel around for suggesting that the court just go ahead and decide the case anyway as long as everyone was there.
I believe it was a situation of some corporate document indicating the state of incorporation and everyone just accepted that, not realizing it had changed, and the new state of incorporation killed diversity or something like that. No one realized it until very late in the game. Definitely one of those "oops" moments every lawyer dreads.
Sure, but jurisdiction without sovereignty is a problematic notion. There is, furthermore, the problem that the authority of the federal government to do anything flows from the Constitution. Nothing that the federal government does can be outside the scope of the Constitution.