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.
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.
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.
Someone who had been a ranger told me that I lot of drugs used to pass through national parks: but I think that was because of a lower density of police.
Comments
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...
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.
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.
The vicinage clause would itself allow vigilante justice. I've heard biker gangs like going to national parks.
Someone who had been a ranger told me that I lot of drugs used to pass through national parks: but I think that was because of a lower density of police.