Page images
PDF
EPUB

to which the cause is so ordered transferred; and thereupon the cause shall be proceeded with in said division in the same manner as if the offense had been committed therein." This does not prevent the finding of an indictment division of the district different from that where the crime has been committed.8 The statutory provision dividing the Southern District of Ohio into two divisions does not require that prosecutions instituted in one shall be transferred to the other when the next term is held in the latter division.10

§ 525a. Place of trial of offenses committed upon the high seas. By the Judicial Code: "The trial of all offenses committed upon the high seas or elsewhere, out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, shall be in the district where the offender is found, or into which he is first brought."1

By the Criminal Code: "The crimes and offenses defined in this chapter shall be punished as herein prescribed:

First. When committed upon the high seas, or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, or when committed within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State on board, any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, or District thereof.

Second. When committed upon any vessel registered, licensed, or enrolled under the laws of the United States, and being on a voyage upon the waters of any of the Great Lakes, namely: Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Saint Clair, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, or any of the waters connecting any of said lakes, or upon the River Saint Lawrence where the same constitutes the International boundary line. Third. When committed within or on any lands reserved or

7 Jud. Code, § 53, St. at L., Comp. St., § 1035.

8 Biggerstaff v. U. S., C. C. A., 260 Fed. 927. Following Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263, 36 L. ed. 429. Contra, U. S. v. Chennault, 230 Fed.

9 Jud. Code, § 100, 36 St. at L. 1121.

10 Patterson v. U. S., C. C. A., 222 Fed. 599.

§ 525a. 1 Jud. Code, enacting 36 St. at L. 1087.

§ 41,

re

acquired for the exclusive use of the United States, and under the exclusive jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legis lature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building. Fourth. On any island, rock, or key, containing deposits of guano, which may, at the discretion of the President, be considered as appertaining to the United States." 2

These statutes are not repugnant to the Sixth Amendment.3 The open waters of the Great Lakes are high seas within the meaning of the statute; but the waters within a marine league. of the coast of the State are within the State and an offense there committed must be in such State tried.5

The statute giving the District Courts of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York concurrent jurisdiction over the waters within certain counties and over all seizures made and all matters done in such waters does not give the District Court for the Southern District jurisdiction of an offense committed on the high seas where the vessel, after the commission of such offense, was brought directly to her pier in the Eastern District.6

Where the offense had been committed on a vessel, which afterwards anchored for quarantine in New York harbor, within the Eastern District of that State, and the offender was there delivered to the marshal for the Southern District, and in that district a warrant for his arrest was first issued, another statute giving both courts concurrent jurisdiction over those waters, it was held that the Federal court of the latter, the Second District, had jurisdiction.7

The words "out of the jurisdiction of any particular State" mean "out of the jurisdiction of any particular State of the United States." 8 It has been held, that the statute does not

2 Criminal Code, § 272, U. S. R. S., § 5339; Act of September 4, 1890, ch. 874, 26 St. at L. 424; Act of March 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 272, 35 St. at L. 1142, Comp. St., § 10445.

3 Cook v. U. S., 138 U. S. 157, 34 L. ed. 906, 20 Op. A. G. 590; Jones v. U. S., 202 U. S. 203; Hyde v. U S., 225 U. S. 347, 56 L. ed. 1114.

4 U. S. v. Rogers, 150 U. S. 249, 37 L. ed. 1071.

5 U. S. v. Newark Meadow Imp. Co., 173 Fed. 426; Miller v. U. S., C. C. A., 242 Fed. 907.

6 U. S. v. Townsend, 219 Fed. 761. 7 U. S. v. Bird, 1 Sprague 299. 8 U. S. v. Furlong, 5 Wheaton 184. In case of murder on Navassa Island, it was held that the Circuit

apply to a crime committed in a continental Territory of the United States.9

The statute contemplates two classes of cases: one in which the offender is apprehended without the limits of the United States and brought in custody into some judicial district; the other in which he is first taken in legal custody after his arrival within some district of the United States; and it does not give the District Attorney of the United States the election in which of two districts to proceed to trial.10

The offender may be tried in the district where he is first arrested, although he landed in another district.11

If a vessel on which the offense was committed was bound to a port in the district and the accused is there in custody, this is prima facie evidence that he was there first arrested.12 It is not usual to offer evidence to prove that the accused was first arrested in the district where he was tried.13

An averment that an offense was committed on the high seas, within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, is sufficient without any other particular designation of the place of the offense,14 but it is the safer practice to name the vessel, island, or territory where the crime was committed.15

Where there was a special verdict finding that the offense was committed at a certain place described and designated, but not finding whether that place was within the jurisdiction of a State, or within a district of the United States, or upon the high seas: it was held to be insufficient.16

When no objection upon this ground had been taken upon. the trial, it was held that a motion in arrest of judgment, on

Court of the United States for the District of Maryland had jurisdietion to try the charge; but where the offense was committed upon the New Hebrides Islands, the Attorney General advised that no Federal Court could have jurisdiction to try the case. 20 Op. A. G. 590.

9 U. S. v. Alberty, 1 Hempstead 44.

10 U. S. v. Bird, 1 Sprague 299. 11 U. S. v. Thompson, 1 Sumner

168; U. S. v. Carrie, 23 Law. Rep. 145; U. S. v. Baker, 5 Blatch. 6.

12 U. S. v. Mingo, 2 Curtis 1. See U. S. v. M'Gill, 4 Dallas 425, 428, note, 1 L. ed. 894, 895, note, s. c., 1- Wash. C. C. 463.

13 U. S. v. Mingo, 2 Curtis 1. 14 U. S. v. Gibert, 2 Sumner 19. 15 Anderson v. U. S., 170 U. S. 481; 42 L. ed. 1116.

16 U. S. v. Jackalow, 1 Black 484, 17 L. ed. 225.

4

the ground that no proof had been adduced in support of the averment that the place of trial was the Disrict and Circuit in which the defendants were first brought and apprehended, must be denied.17

§ 525b. Place of trial of offenses begun in one district and completed in another. By the Judicial Code: "When any offense against the United States is begun in one judicial district and completed in another, it shall be deemed to have been committed in either, and may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in either district, in the same manner, as if it had been actually and wholly committed therein."1 In a case where the crime consists in the mailing of a letter offering a bribe, it may be punished in the place where the letter was delivered although the briber and letter writer was never there. Where it consists in the impersonation of an officer of the United States by telephone, it is committed where the telephone message is received. The same rule applies where the crime consists in an agreement consummated by the acceptance of an offer. Where a fraud consisted in the issue of a certificate of deposit signed in blank by the cashier of a national bank in one State, filled in by another in a second State and negotiated in a third State, an indictment in the first State was sustained.5 This applies to the thief as well as the receiver.6

Where the crime consists in a failure to file a paper in a public office or to make a report to a public officer, the indictment must be found in the district where the office is located; and the omission is not a continuing offense, although the busi

17 U. S. v. Crawford, 1 N. Y. Legal Observer 288, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 14,890.

§ 525b. 1 Jud. Code, § 42, 36 St. at L. 1087, re-enacting U. S. R. S., $ 731.

2 Re Palliser, 136 U. S. 257, 34 L. ed. 514, in which the writer was counsel; Benson v. Henkel, 198 U. S. 1, 15, 49 L. ed. 919, 924. As to proof of place of mailing a letter, see Underwood v. U. S., C. C. A., 267 Fed. 412, 416.

3 Lamar v. U. S., 240 U. S. 60. 4 Burton v. U. S., 202 U. S. 344, 50 L. ed. 1057.

5 Simpson v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 940.

6 Morris v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 516; U. S. v. Sullivan, 250 Fed. 632.

7U. S. v. Lambardo, 241 U. S. 73, affirming 228 Fed. 980. But see U. S. v. Buchanan, 238 Fed. 877.

8 Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U. S. 283.

ness to which the paper or report relates is pursued in another district.

§ 525c. Place of trial of offenses under the Interstate Commerce Law. By the Act of February 19, 1903, commonly known as the Elkins Law, which was intended to prevent discrimination between shippers by carriers, after providing for the punishment of the grant, or acceptance, offer, solicitation, or receipt of rebates, concessions, or discriminations, in respect to the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce by any common carrier; 1 it is provided, "Every violation of this section shall be prosecuted in any court of the United States having jurisdiction of crimes within the district in which such violation was committed or through which the transportation may have been conducted; and whenever the offense is begun. in one jurisdiction and completed in another it may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished in either jurisdiction in the same manner as if the offense had been actually and wholly committed therein." 2 This statute is constitutional.3

It authorized a prosecution for the transportation of property at less than the published rate in any district through which the property is carried at the unlawful rates.

By the Act of February 13, 1913, punishing the larceny of goods in interstate of foreign shipment and their receipt knowing that they have been stolen, "prosecutions therefor may be instituted in any district wherein the crime shall have been committed. The carrying or transporting of any such freight, express, baggage, goods, or chattels from one State or Territory or the District of Columbia into another State or Territory or the District of Columbia, knowing the same to have been stolen, shall constitute a separate offense and subject the offender to the penalties above described for unlawful taking, and prosecutions therefor may be instituted in any district into which such freight, express, baggage, goods, or chattels shall have been re

§ 525c. 1 Ch. 708, § 1, 32 St. at L. 847, Comp. St., § 8597.

2 Ibid. See Northern Central Ry. Co. v. U. S., C. C. A., 241 Fed. 25. 3 Armour Packing Co. v. U. S., 209 U. S. 56, 70, 73.

4 Ibid. But see U. S. v. Albert Steinfeld & Co., 209 Fed. 904, under Neutrality Resolution, March 14, 1912, No. 10, 37 St. at L. 630. :

« PreviousContinue »