The perfect crime.

[Tom]

I heard about this on the radio, Nat.PublicRadio a couple of days ago. You do it in Idaho, but at your own risk, as described by some law prof.

A law prof. wrote an article with a title like this, the perfect crime. They brought it up with others prior to the article and hope the jurisdiction boundaries are redrawn to fix it, before its to late.

Here's the crime set up. The creation of Yellowstone nat. park says the Wyoming judges have jurisdiction over the whole park. Other laws say we are entitled to a jury of pears in the area where the alleged crime was committed. The part of Yellowstone that is in Idaho has no residents.

If a crime was committed there, there could be no jury, so you'd get off. You have to be careful to do no part of the crime, its planing, etc. somewhere else. Like poach a buffalo in the Idaho part of Yellowstone. When they created the park, poaching used to be a problem, apparently, its not completely fixed yet.

It was interesting, I hope it gets fixed. I imagine the crime would have to be planned somewhere else and jurisdiction would be there. The person committing the alleged crime would actually live somewhere else. The law prof. thought it was a legal glitch though.

 

[MarvB]

Would that be a jury of Bartlett pears?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Tom,

I believe you are incorrect. On the Idaho side there are a couple of old homesteads with abandoned orchards. I know for a fact that there are Apricot and Pear trees there.

 

[MarvB]

Sooo Jose...are you saying then that the person(s) in question planned the crime while living on the homestead or actually committed the crime at the homestead?? And if the crime had something to do with the apples shouldn't the perpetrator be tried by a jury of Macintoshes and not by the Bartlett’s if indeed they need to be peers rather than pears??

This is getting as complicated as Bandit and Q-1 running away from home....

 

[JoseCuervo]

Due to their not being a statute of limitations on the "alleged" crime, I won't comment further due to attorney-client priviledge. I will, however, suggest that your allegations of the Macintoshes being involved is heresay, and is irrelevant to the apricots being in the proximity at the time in question.

And I don't think this is nearly as complex as the "runaway bride and groom"'s multiple excursions away from their current place of abode.

 

[Nemont]

Tom,

I think you need to climb off the tree and go refill the deer feeder in order to get some blood flowing. Jurisdiction in the Park is Federal regardless of where it occurs in the boundaries. Apparently Texas law prof.'s don't read the law.

CHAP.72-An Act To protect the birds and animals in Yellowstone National Park, and to punish crimes in said park, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 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; and that all the laws applicable to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall have force and effect in said park: Provided, however, That 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. 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.

SEC. 2. That said park, for all the purposes of this Act, shall constitute a part of the United States judicial district of Wyoming, and the district and circuit courts of the United States in and for said district shall have jurisdiction of all offenses committed within said park.

SEC. 3. That if any offense shall be committed in said Yellowstone National Park, which offense is not prohibited or the punishment is not specially provided for by any law of the United States or by any regulation of the Secretary of the Interior, the offender shall be subject to the same punishment as the laws of the State of Wyoming in force at the time of the commission of the offense may provide for a like offense in the said State; and no subsequent repeal of any such law of the State of Wyoming shall affect any prosecution for said offense committed within said park.

I think don't one has to reside in Idaho in order to be consider one's pear. But comparing apples to apples if you commit a in crime in YNP you are in big time trouble. I wouldn't listen to any fruity Law Prof. from Texas who can't google the rules of Jurisdiction in YNP. And that isn't just sour grapes.

Nemont

 

[Quiet_One]

Udo crime anywhere u shall or do do the time, anyway LOL,me hubby running away i like that, not sure if it as complicated as this, anyway yeah lawyer talk from jose, it understnd it and what lawyers are capable of doing, mostly give crimers another chance, half time, not saying all do, anyway,al i can se is cops not just here but alot places goin after the little crimes not big ones, even if u wanna call it crime, anyway, they sure dont do thie job, but not just illeglas, also alot other races to, sad man dont take job if u cant do it

 

[Tom]

Nemont, I know you're from Montana, but don't they have juries up there too? There would be the county jury for a county crime and a federal jury for a federal crime. Here's the link, maybe we can figure out what the law prof. was talking about from this. Its going to be published in the Georgetown Law Journal, it says.

I'll read what you cut and pasted, it sounds relevent. Ok, I read it. A Wyoming judge hears your crime. If you do it in the Idaho or the Montana part of Yellowstone, the 6th ammendment says you get a jury from that state, Idaho or Montana. There's no people there to be on your jury, so, end of trial. That's the idea.

But, you better read the article, if you want to try it. Because you heard about it here, you'd be in trouble, it wouldn't be pearfect.

Here's the link, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4647041

 

[Nemont]

Tom,

If a crime is committed inside of YNP and it does not violate Federal Statutes but violates State statutes then the State that is given Jurisdiction is Wyoming. It does not matter where whether the crime took place in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. The Feds gave jurisdiction to Wyoming.

SEC. 3. That if any offense shall be committed in said Yellowstone National Park, which offense is not prohibited or the punishment is not specially provided for by any law of the United States or by any regulation of the Secretary of the Interior, the offender shall be subject to the same punishment as the laws of the State of Wyoming in force at the time of the commission of the offense may provide for a like offense in the said State; and no subsequent repeal of any such law of the State of Wyoming shall affect any prosecution for said offense committed within said park.

Tom the author isn't even certain if the loophole exists. Why spend any more time worried about crime in an area that has no people? In addition the article starts out by saying

"You may have daydreamed about it: some forgotten constitutional provision, combined with an obscure statute, that together make it possible for people in the know to commit crimes with impunity. Whether you were looking for opportunities to commit crimes or afraid that somebody else was, the possibility of a constitutional “perfect crime” was too compelling to ignore. This Essay represents the fruits of my own daydreams, combined with the fact that lately I have spent my lucid moments mulling over one particular forgotten constitutional provision: the Sixth Amendment’s vicinage requirement.

The courts may or may not agree that my loophole exists, and in any case this Essay is not intended to inspire anyone to go out and commit crimes. Crime is bad, after all. But so is violating the Constitution. If the loophole described in this Essay does exist it should be closed, not ignored."

In addition the crimes he suggests that you could commit while in that little slice of Idaho would all be federal crimes.

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.

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

Lets see poaching inside YNP= Federal Crime
Making Moonshine = Definately a Federal Crime
Commiting Murder on Federal Lands= I think the FBI would have Jurisdiction= Federal crime.


It wouldn't matter if the felony was committed in the Idaho portion of the park because Wyoming has jurisdiction.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

Nemont, are you a constitutional law prof. or a lawyer? That author is, you didn't address his issue with the 6th amendment. He said what you said about the federal judge in Wyoming hearing the case. He also said, the 6th amendment says the jury comes from the state where the crime is. You left that part out, the 6th amendment.

You got an answer for that, how do they get the jury from Idaho citizens, if there's only pears and apples there?

 

[Nemont]

Nemont, are you a constitutional law prof. or a lawyer?

Nope, but this discussion is so stupid that it shouldn't even be brought up. First off it hasn't been an issue, ever, since the park was formed. Why tell people about it because now some idiot will think, "cool, I can commit a crime and not get into to trouble". Don't you think there are a lot more pressing constitutional questions besides this one?


I think guys like this prof. are like the lead character in Anchorman: a self absorbed "scholar" who sits around with buddies saying, "I have many leather bound books and my office smells of rich mahogany". So I am done posting on this thread. You can ponder where your pears are and how to commit the perfect crime in the wilderness of Idaho.

Nemont

 

[noharleyyet]

Jose, how many billable seconds did you rack up on this one?

 

[Tom]

I'm not pondering it, but I hope the article generates a fix to a potential problem, before its a big problem. That's why he told people, its his job.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, how many billable seconds did you rack up on this one?

I'm gonna write it off as pro bono.....

Helping Tom out is one of the joys of life....

 

[Bandit]

This is getting as complicated as Bandit and Q-1 running away from home....[/QUOTE]



Hey now we arent running away now LMAO. We were supposed to get the boot. But anyway, they need to figure out if comitting the perfect crime as they listed, is really perfect. Sounds like someone needs to check into that for sure.

 

[MarvB]

how do they get the jury from Idaho citizens, if there's only pears and apples there?

...I believe you forgot about the apricots and the grapes?


...I just wanted to keep this thread on topic hump

 

[Tom]

Marv got it, you need 12 peers, that's the problem. Not pears, not peeled, Idaho peers. Do they have em?