>On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Chris Nandor wrote:
>
>> Focus on the law itself being bad, not the fact that someone who broke
>> it wasn't in the country when he broke it
>
Tom Phoenix wrote:

>You're right, that this is what we should do. But there is still an
>important legal principle.
>
>The principle is _not_ that Sklyarov wasn't in the US when he broke US
>law. That's a red herring. The real principle is that each country (or,
>often, a state, province, county, or city) has to do its own laws and
>prosecutions. Each jurisdiction has that responsibility, and right; no one
>else can do their prosecutions for them.
>
>If you are successfully prosecuted for marijuana possession in Ohio, you
>repay your debt to society and you're done. You don't have to worry that,
>upon a subsequent visit to Utah, you will be prosecuted again for your
>actions in Ohio.
>
>Now, I know, you're thinking that that would be double jeopardy, which is
>unconstitutional. True. But double jeopardy is just a special case of this
>general "one-jurisdiction" rule.

I disagree. Double jeopardy is a concept that is separate and distinct from
the notion of jurisdiction. For instance, an actor may be prosecuted for
acts against 2 separate sovereigns, i.e., violations of state and federal
law, for exactly the same act or acts (for instance, one bank robbery).

Both sovereigns have jurisdiction - prosecution by one does not jeopardize
the defendant under the laws of the other.

Oregon and Washington *both* have jurisdiction over fishing violations
committed on the Columbia River where it divides the two states, however the
instrument that created that jurisdiction prohibits anyone for being
prosecuted by either jurisdiction for acts for which he has already been
prosecuted by the other jurisdiction. However, there is no state or federal
jeopardy issue; both are equal sovereigns.

To see that more clearly...
>
>Suppose you use medicinal marijuana in Oregon (where it is legal), then
>you walk across the border to Idaho (where it is not legal). You don't
>bring any marijuana with you, and you don't use it in Idaho. Again, Idaho
>can't prosecute you for a "crime" (by their standards) committed outside
>their jurisdiction. Even if you keep going into Canada, the Canadians
>can't prosecute you for the "crime" you committed in Oregon.

Quite right. But that has to do with jurisdiction, not jeopardy. If
marijuana were being transported across both Oregon and Idaho in violation
of the laws of both states, both states could theoretically prosecute. If
you think that there are evidence problems with that, assume a state of
facts where the defendant, caught in Idaho with the pot, confessed to
bringing it from Portland. Then the police, by investigating, came upon
evidence that 1) the defendant lived and worked in Portland, 2) that he had
worked a full day 2 days before his arrest and 3) he bought gasoline in
Baker City the day before his arrest.

This would be all either state would need to corroborate his confession, and
he could be convicted in both forums.




"Once in awhile you get shown the light in the strangest of places
if you look at it right." (Hunter/Garcia)

LarryO