old - but maybe interesting

[_Choyo Chagas]

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.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4529829.stm (Monday, 9 May, 2005, 14:39 GMT 15:39 UK)

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.

"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."

--- questions:
- is this true?
- are more poorly drafted statutes in the sixth any amendments in the us constitution?
--- answers:
- your turn...

by the way

Abstract
This article argues that there is a 50-square-mile swath of Idaho in which one can commit felonies with impunity. This is because of the intersection of a poorly drafted statute with a clear but neglected constitutional provision: the Sixth Amendment's Vicinage Clause.

(https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... _id=691642)

more from that:

Still, Congress should close the Idaho loophole, not pretend it does not exist.

short after it closes the President case...

[_Res Ipsa]

I read the paper and it looks like this is a bona fide loophole that still exists. Would make an interesting case.

[_subgenius]

The argument is academically more intriguing than in its practical application. (by the way, is this "district" part of the national park?")

For example, the "speedy" trial in the 6th is measured by State legislation and in Idaho you could be held for about a year and still be "speedy"... Then the State has other means to slow that "speed".

And then the speedy loophole of - "The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution or indictment to be dismissed." Good cause sounds easy.

Nevertheless, the idea that a lack of residents from that district does not dismiss the felony... for example, in the US if you murder someone in international waters, you still go to jail, still get a trial, still get punished upon guilty verdict. Likewise, go to a foreign country and sex up a minor where sex with a minor is legal... you can still be prosecuted in the US upon your return.

[_Choyo Chagas]

The argument is academically more intriguing than in its practical application. (by the way, is this "district" part of the national park?")

can you read?

... go to a foreign country and sex up a minor where sex with a minor is legal... you can still be prosecuted in the US upon your return.

if there is any evidence

by the way did you do this?
just asking...

[_Res Ipsa]

Subgenius, the loophole is created by the fact that Congress put the portions of Idaho and Montana that lie within the Park in the District of Wyoming. Your example involves crimes that do not incur in a state. In those cases, Congress can specify where the jury pool comes from.

The article discusses at length things a court could do to get around the problem, but they would require mangling the relevant constitutional language. (Not that this would be the first time that has happened.) The author’s point is that Congress can easily fix the problem by putting the part of the park that is in Idaho back into the District of Idaho; it should do that to avoid having someone in the future raise the loophole as a defense.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius, the loophole is created by the fact that Congress put the portions of Idaho and Montana that lie within the Park in the District of Wyoming. Your example involves crimes that do not incur in a state. In those cases, Congress can specify where the jury pool comes from.

The article discusses at length things a court could do to get around the problem, but they would require mangling the relevant constitutional language. (Not that this would be the first time that has happened.) The author’s point is that Congress can easily fix the problem by putting the part of the park that is in Idaho back into the District of Idaho; it should do that to avoid having someone in the future raise the loophole as a defense.

Point being, it really isn't a problem at all, especially within the scope of society at-large. So it's hardly worth applying Congressional resources.

[_Res Ipsa]

I doubt we’re talking substantial resources here — if Congress can spend time naming post offices and declaring special days, I’m sure a few minutes could be spared to correct an oopsie in a statute.