Let's assume a court convicted someone of murder within this zone. Let's also assume the evidence was overwhelming and the act was premeditated because the murderer had knowledge of the Sixth Amendment and this loophole. The case makes it's way to the Supreme Court. But because of the bizarre nature of the loophole SCOTUS simply chooses not to hear appeal and lets the conviction stand. This is how the law could be enforced while technically violating the Sixth Amendment.
> Let's assume a court convicted someone of murder within this zone. Let's also assume the evidence was overwhelming and the act was premeditated because the murderer had knowledge of the Sixth Amendment and this loophole. The case makes it's way to the Supreme Court. But because of the bizarre nature of the loophole SCOTUS simply chooses not to hear appeal and lets the conviction stand. This is how the law could be enforced while technically violating the Sixth Amendment.
How would a conviction take place without a jury? Even in the Belderrain case in the Montana section of the park, a jury was never formed; there was only an initial ruling that a trial could move forward despite the risk of partiality, but the case was settled with a plea agreement where the defendant waived any right to pursuing the Zone of Death legal challenge.
(can an attorney fact-check me here, by the way? I'm definitely not one)
> How would a conviction take place without a jury?
I believe the parent's point was that it could take place with a jury from anywhere else, thereby violating the letter of the 6th amendment, but without this having an effect: The convicted person would have to appeal the conviction, but no higher court would decide to hear the appeal.
(I'm not a lawyer either, I'm just writing down my understanding of what the parent said.)
If it's premeditated, it has likely been premeditated somewhere else. If so, isn't the premeditation in itself a crime for which you could be prosecuted (in the place where you planned everything).
I think technical people are fascinated by this zone because we like rules and thus anything that has a unique set of rules is interesting. The reality, though, is that legislation isn’t code, the Constitution is violated all the time, and most legal codes are more like suggestions.
While this sounds dystopian, it is probably actually preferable to a state that enforces all of its laws to the letter.
Rules have never stopped a "bad person" from doing something.
Rules aren't made to keep the "bad person out";
they're made to keep the "good people in".
I wish I knew who originated it. I can't seem to recall where I heard it now.
> A federal judge ruled that Belderrain could be tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, despite the Sixth Amendment problem. Belderrain cited Kalt's paper "The Perfect Crime" to explain why he believed it was illegal to have his trial with a jury from a state other than where the crime was committed. The court dismissed this argument.
Judges especially Federal judges are far less impressed by "hacks" and "loopholes" of the system, than most programmers.
There is no chance they will let a premeditated murder go unpunished on the basis of some obscure technicality like this.
They're not completely capricious. Laws don't operate under the confines of a strict propositional calculus: you don't follow strict axiomatic derivations to a contradiction and declare yourself finished. Instead, it operates generally on a basis that cases with facts in common should have the same decision (hence the name "common law"). And the law is written with this process in mind: if legislators don't like the judicial interpretation of their text, they can change it by changing the law.
The purpose of a legal system is not preventing people from doing things deemed illegal. Its purpose is the maintenance and expansion of state power. Laws are not designed for your benefit. If you benefit from a law that is merely incidental.
Laws are just a facade to legitimize, in the eyes of the populace, the state enforcing its will.
The state writes the laws in their own interest so that the majority of the time it serves them to remain within legal bounds. And the majority of the times a state violates its own laws are not made public until years later, if at all, negating public outcry. In this way the citizenry remains placid and is willing to overlook the few events in which a state publicly flouts the law.
In practice, I would be surprised if any court up to and including the Supreme Court would find this loophole an acceptable defense. It could certainly be a long complicated legal battle, but ultimately, I doubt the Supreme Court would find that the intent of the Sixth Amendment was to allow criminals to go free in this situation.
There is another loophole to this loophole. Yes, there is a requirement that the jury come from people who live in the area, but that does not extend to saying that they have to have been living there at the time of the crime. If push comes to shove, the government can probably arrange to have a sufficient jury pool move into the area prior to jury selection. It would be a comically expensive thing to do but possible.
> In all criminal prosecutions, 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 [...]
There have been lots of legal disputes about the "impartial" part and the procedures for jury selection (leading to a whole body of custom and caselaw about it). I imagine that would be a contentious angle in your plan, because people who knowingly moved specifically in order to be eligible to serve on a jury for a particular trial might not appear entirely "impartial" in that case. (Of course, I'm not sure which way that issue would go.)
That would indeed be a problem. Creating an army base in the area and just dumping a bunch of soldiers would not work. The government would have to "move" people naturally, by perhaps founding a town and incentivizing investment to draw people it. Ludicrously expensive, but possible even within the "speedy trial" timeframe.
I would never suggest that a government physically do this. Rather, the possibility would be an argument against the idea that jury trials are impossible per se. A reviewing court would outline some compromised procedure to select a jury, something short of physically getting people to move.
Is it less work if a team of law enforcement officers standing within the Idaho section of the park just move any evidence and throw it over the park line and we can all pretend the original crime just happened in normal Idaho?
Yes, what I'm describing is illegal, but how would your prosecute it?
So if a supervillain was to try to trigger a massive eruption within the Yellowstone Caldera by detonating a weapon inside [0], they could drill to it via the Zone of Death?
Yes, but a crack team consisting of James Bond, Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer, and Joe Biden could go in and kill the supervillain without any legal repercussions.
Readit News
How would a conviction take place without a jury? Even in the Belderrain case in the Montana section of the park, a jury was never formed; there was only an initial ruling that a trial could move forward despite the risk of partiality, but the case was settled with a plea agreement where the defendant waived any right to pursuing the Zone of Death legal challenge.
(can an attorney fact-check me here, by the way? I'm definitely not one)
I believe the parent's point was that it could take place with a jury from anywhere else, thereby violating the letter of the 6th amendment, but without this having an effect: The convicted person would have to appeal the conviction, but no higher court would decide to hear the appeal.
(I'm not a lawyer either, I'm just writing down my understanding of what the parent said.)
If you have planned the murder with someone else, that is a conspiracy, which is a serious crime in itself. You don't even need to attempt the murder.
If you were just premeditating in your own mind, that is not a crime. Though it might be a factor in sentencing for the actual crime.
If the premeditation involves writing down plans with maps etc, then... I haven't listened to that episode yet.
While this sounds dystopian, it is probably actually preferable to a state that enforces all of its laws to the letter.
Judges especially Federal judges are far less impressed by "hacks" and "loopholes" of the system, than most programmers.
There is no chance they will let a premeditated murder go unpunished on the basis of some obscure technicality like this.
Seriously. If they're completely capricious, what good are they?
Laws are just a facade to legitimize, in the eyes of the populace, the state enforcing its will.
The state writes the laws in their own interest so that the majority of the time it serves them to remain within legal bounds. And the majority of the times a state violates its own laws are not made public until years later, if at all, negating public outcry. In this way the citizenry remains placid and is willing to overlook the few events in which a state publicly flouts the law.
"Death" is just related to one of the possible crimes that would be problematic to prosecute.
But even so, the way plea deals work a defendant would have to be quite idealistic or dumb to go to trial with that as a sole defense.
This is the only time in history when a headline like "Yellowstone's one weird trick they don't want you to know" would actually be kind of true.
The focus on murder ignores all of the other crimes you could commit like illegal logging, wildcat mining, or endangered species poaching.
Dead Comment
One complication is that if you have a permanent crime facility there, like a meth lab, the FBI can just go there and kill you.
> In all criminal prosecutions, 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 [...]
There have been lots of legal disputes about the "impartial" part and the procedures for jury selection (leading to a whole body of custom and caselaw about it). I imagine that would be a contentious angle in your plan, because people who knowingly moved specifically in order to be eligible to serve on a jury for a particular trial might not appear entirely "impartial" in that case. (Of course, I'm not sure which way that issue would go.)
I would never suggest that a government physically do this. Rather, the possibility would be an argument against the idea that jury trials are impossible per se. A reviewing court would outline some compromised procedure to select a jury, something short of physically getting people to move.
Yes, what I'm describing is illegal, but how would your prosecute it?
Deleted Comment
[0] https://jonnyquest.fandom.com/wiki/The_Edge_of_Yesterday?fil...