Unrepentant Fenian
(707 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-18-08 01:09 AM
Original message |
Any Lawyers ???? Hypothetical legal question. |
|
We came up with this one at work, but couldn't come up with any good answers. Anybody want to weigh in???? Hypothetical situation: A person is standing exactly at "Four Corners", ( where the states of Colorado, New Mexico,Arizona and Utah come together) and they are shot and killed by a person who is straddling the Colo./ Utah border. When the person who was shot falls, he ends up laying across the Arizona/ New Mexico border. Who would have jurisdiction over the crime. Let's assume that "Four Corners" is not on federal land. it would seem that the defendant could keep a case like this tied up for years just trying to figure out where the crime occurred. Any ideas? Thanks!
|
Captain Angry
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-18-08 01:16 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Wouldn't the jurisdiction be that of the shooter? |
|
They committed the crime.
Otherwise, couldn't you technically be on a flatbed truck, and during the split second the truck crosses a state line, you shoot somebody else on the truck? Which state would get the call?
It's an interesting one though. Best remedy, stay away from Four Corners. :-)
|
Unrepentant Fenian
(707 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-18-08 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
I'm not sure, but that still leaves the question, "What state was the shooter in when the crime was committed ?".
|
Captain Angry
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-18-08 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Since the victim was the one on the borders... |
|
forensic evidence should clearly show which state the shooter was in.
Now, if the shooter was on the borders, I wonder if the case could become federal since they crossed state lines in the commission of a crime?
This is me just talking out of my butt, I have no legal knowledge at all. Just thinking out loud (or in text as the case may be)
|
lumberjack_jeff
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-18-08 01:27 AM
Response to Original message |
4. FBI. It's an interstate crime. |
Unrepentant Fenian
(707 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Apr-18-08 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Couldn't one argue that ..... |
|
Couldn't one argue that it isn't interstate because both victim and shooter were in the same state at the same time but not name the state? Or you could make that argument and claim that no one knows what state it occurred in.
|
happyslug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-20-08 01:55 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Resolved many year ago, could be tried in ALL FOUR STATES. |
|
All each state needs to show is one part of the crime occurred in their state. On top of this if it is on a Federal Reservation, he also could be tried by the Federal Government (If a Federal Officer was the person killed a Federal charge could still be charge).
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 09:43 PM
Response to Original message |