
The Perfect Crime (2005) - rplas
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691642
======
lotharbot
Summary:

The 6th amendment requires a jury pool to be selected from the state/district
where a crime is committed. The part of Yellowstone National Park which is in
the state of Idaho has no residents, and therefore no potential jury
candidates. This creates a loophole which could possibly allow someone to
commit a serious crime that could not be prosecuted.

There are potential strategies to close the loophole: residents moving into
the area after a crime is committed, interpreting the clause broadly enough to
allow residents from neighboring "similar areas" to qualify, prosecuting
lesser crimes that don't require jury trials, prosecuting related crimes (such
as "conspiracy to X") that took place outside of the area, or even vigilante
justice.

See also
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicinage_Clause#The_perfect_cri...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicinage_Clause#The_perfect_crime.3F)

~~~
baddox
I have heard of trials being moved to a nearby jurisdiction, usually when
there is some conflict of interest in the original district (like if the
defendant is a public official in the district). I would guess that moving a
trial doesn't require a jury, so perhaps the prosecutor could just move the
trial to the nearest district with residents.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Pulling a jury from a district where the crime wasn't committed can only
happen with consent of the accused. Quite a lot of legal work has been done to
expand the definition of where the crime was committed to allow for venue
shopping.

------
Bartleby00
This "loophole" was even a plot device in a recent book, "Free Fire" by CJ
Box. [http://www.cjbox.net/books/free-fire](http://www.cjbox.net/books/free-
fire)

------
patcheudor
Given this is Hacker News it is interesting to consider 'softer crimes' than
murder which even the threat of might be able to drive legislative change. It
would seem that, if permits could be granted, it would make a great place for
a "no rules" security camp-con. Look at DEFCON as an example. They have a
wireless CTF; however, certain hacking techniques are off limits if one is
concerned about being charged with a felony. As an example, signal jamming to
downgrade connections to weaker ones which have implemented broken protocols
or jamming and redirecting GPS signals:

Title 18, Section 1362 - prohibits willful or malicious interference to US
government communications; subjects the operator to possible fines,
imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. § 1362)

Title 18, Section 1367(a) - prohibits intentional or malicious interference to
satellite communications; subjects the operator to possible fines,
imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. § 1367(a))

While there would likely be very low interest from law enforcement for local
signal jamming against competitors in a wireless CTF, things could get
interesting if someone attempted to hijack or jam satellite uplinks from that
location. Surely such antics, even without an arrest would spur more immediacy
in closing the loophole?

------
anonymfus
Is not it technically possible to do such perfect crime in any district, if
you just kill everybody who lives in it?

------
jcr
The actual paper:

[http://passthebarexam.com/articles/SSRN-
id691642.pdf](http://passthebarexam.com/articles/SSRN-id691642.pdf)

------
xenadu02
This is one of those wonderful "theory meets practice" issues. US history is
full of people arguing on similar technicalities and courts universally reject
them as such.

There is zero chance you could commit a semi-major or major crime there and
get away with it, anymore than you can quash a warrant and exclude evidence
because they mis-spelled your name on the warrant application.

Even if, by some miracle, you managed to "get away with it", after years in
solitary confinement, a $1000000+ legal bill, and a completely ruined life...
congrats, you're the one and only person to ever manage it because your case
would immediately spur political efforts to close the loophole.

The bottom line: this just isn't an issue in reality.

------
randomfool
Alternate source of explanation-
[http://loststates.blogspot.com/2011/08/loophole-landwhere-
cr...](http://loststates.blogspot.com/2011/08/loophole-landwhere-crimes-cant-
be.html?m=1)

Key point is that it's a district with zero population, so there's no jury
pool.

~~~
gizmo686
The district itself has a non-zero population. The problem is that it is split
between three states, and the portion of the district that is in the state of
Idaho has zero population.

------
lvevjo
The article is pretty old. Has anyone tried to exploit this loophole since
then?

~~~
Sniffnoy
Actually, yes. Here's a recent article overviewing the subject:
[http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738756/you-can-kill-someone-
in...](http://www.vox.com/2014/5/22/5738756/you-can-kill-someone-in-a-section-
of-yellowstone-and-get-away-scot)

Scroll down to "an actual case". Mind you, AFAICT, they didn't travel to the
'zone of death' intentionally to commit a crime; but, having committed a crime
there, they did attempt to use this defense.

