sixth-amendment federal-courts
Getting away with murder in Yellowstone National Park?
<p><a href="http://www.vice.com/read/theres-a-50-square-mile-section-of-yellowstone-where-you-can-get-away-with-murder" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.vice.com/read/theres-a-50-square-mile-section-of-yellowstone-where-you-can-get-away-with-murder</a></p>

<p>Is there something to the idea explained on the page linked above?</p>

<p>It says portions of Yellowstone National Park are in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, but Congress placed the entire park in Wyoming's federal judicial district.  And then it says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Article III of the Constitution requires federal criminal trials to be held in the state in which the crime was committed. And the Sixth Amendment entitles a federal criminal defendant to a trial by jurors living in the state and district where the crime was committed. But if someone committed a crime in the uninhabited Idaho portion of Yellowstone, Kalt surmised, it would be impossible to form a jury. And being federal land, the state would have no jurisdiction.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The part about the state having no jurisdiction is something I wouldn't have guessed.  It is, after all, within a state, and murder trials are usually not held in federal courts.</p>

<p>Article III, Section 2 of The Constitution requires that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by
  jury; and such <strong>trial shall be held in the state</strong> where the said crimes
  shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state,
  the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law
  have directed</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Since the Idaho portion of Yellowstone is part of the state of Idaho and is not part of a non-state, ergo the trial shall be held in Idaho, according to The Constitution.</p>

<p>One jurisdictional statute, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/16/24" rel="noreferrer">16 USC 24</a>, says </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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. <em>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</em>. 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.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So the crime would be a federal matter. I put emphasis on a sentence that doesn't have a straightforward interpretation. There is another jurisdictional statute <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/131" rel="noreferrer">28 USC 131</a>, the problematic one, which states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Wyoming and those portions of Yellowstone National Park situated in
  Montana and Idaho constitute one judicial district.</p>
  
  <p>Court shall be held at Casper, Cheyenne, Evanston, Lander, Jackson,
  and Sheridan.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Therefore, the crime must be tried in Wyoming. Moreover, the judicial district of Wyoming also includes that unoccupied portion of the park in Idaho. This statute conflicts with Article III, Section 2, which requires court to be held in Idaho. Since The Constitution has precedence over federal statutes, the instruction to hold court in Wyoming is unconstitutional. </p>

<p>The 6th Amendment does not pose a particular problem, with its requirement that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>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</p>
</blockquote>

<p>since the jury could be of Idahoans, and transported to Wyoming – the 6th addresses the nature of the jury, not the location of the trial.</p>

<p>It is an open question what the 6th Amendment refers to in talking of "state and district", since district is not defined at a constitutional level. The only district with constitutional stature is the District of Columbia, which is not a state, and therefore there could be no "state and district" if we mean "district, as specifically mentioned in The Constitution". The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1789" rel="noreferrer">Judiciciary Act of 1789</a> first created federal judiciary districts, signed by Washington on September 24, 1789, and the 6th Amendment was passed by Congress the next day. It is reasonable to assume that this is what they meant by "district".</p>

<p>28 USC 131 does say that all of Wyoming plus a sliver of Idaho are a judicial district, so one could have a jury composed of citizens of Wyoming which satisfies the "jury of the district" requirement, but that would not satisfy the "jury of the state" requirement. If anyone lived in that area, those people could constitute a "jury of the state and district", but you would still have a clash between the statutory and constitutional requirements for venue. </p>

<p>I'd like to add a few points.</p>

<p>There are several important limitations to the loophole. First, the crime would have to be committed entirely within the Zone; if it weren't, the prosecutors could charge it somewhere less problematic.</p>

<p>Second, there is the possibility of charges that don't carry a right to a jury trial (Class B misdemeanors or below).</p>

<p>Third and most importantly, there is the possibility that the court might interpret the 6th Amendment some way other than literally here. A purposive interpretation, for instance, could lead the court to say that the interests of the 6th Amendment are not disserved by having a Wyoming jury try this case. I disagree with that argument, but that doesn't mean a court might not use it.</p>

<p>As for the Belderrain case mentioned in the comments, I think it is worth noting that part of the defendant's plea was that he not appeal this issue to the 10th Circuit. The deal allowed him to appeal every other issue (which is what led to the appeal you might see on Westlaw), but not this one. I am hesitant to classify this result as the loophole being closed. Indeed, since the prosecutor telegraphed that he didn't want to let the 10th Circuit get a hold of the issue, it seems to me to suggest that the loophole is still open just as widely as it was before, minus a realpolitik consideration that pushing it carries the risk of not getting a very good plea deal if you lose.</p>
