Jurisdiction Over A Crime Committed In An Airplane Flying Over U.S. States If a woman assaults another passenger while on a plane flying over the continental United States, which courts have jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal case against her? (This question comes up in various iterations on a regular basis on Law.SE and so I ask and answer the question based upon a recent court decision that is on point.)
Woman slaps fellow passenger on flight from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, is convicted of assault in California. Ninth Circuit (panel): Wrong venue. She can only be prosecuted in the district over which the assault occurred. Ninth Circuit (en banc, over a dissent): Nonsense. Not only would that make it practically difficult to prosecute, the Framers couldn't possibly have intended the Venue and Vicinage Clauses to include the airspace over a state or district (had they foreseen metal tubes carrying people while hurtling through the sky at 600 miles per hour). Venue is proper where the plane lands and any state it traveled through; conviction affirmed. From here.
There are some statutes that have a section that says "any violation of this action is punishable by . . . ." but the INA is not one of them. Generally speaking, the way it would be imposed would be: (1) to deny entry on a departing commercial airplane flight or ship (which is enforced by the private enterprises involved pursuant to Transportation Department regulations that the private enterprises may be sanctioned for not obeying) and (2) to set up presumptions about the reasonableness of, for example, laws requiring someone to have brought a passport to secure embassy access. One of the reasons that no penalty is stated is because the constitutionality of this statute is doubtful. Geographical restrictions on travel in some cases have been upheld as constitutional with regard to specific countries and in war time, but are even then strictly construed. But, no case has upheld the restriction as applied to travel to a country to which geographical restrictions do not apply. Likewise, I doubt that the provision denying entry to U.S. citizens without a passport, even during times of war, would be upheld today. For example, 215(b) was given a narrow construction (disallowing criminal prosecutions when someone went to Cuba and returned via a third-country while holding a valid U.S. passport) in part out of concern for the constitutional right to travel. U.S. v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475, 481 (1967). See also See L. Tribe, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW § 15-15, at 957 n.22 (1978) (arguing that ‘the power approved in Zemel must be limited to the most extraordinary situations'). For background see, e.g. Right to Travel Abroad, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 184, 195 (1984) (student note published anonymously) and Thomas E. Laursen, Constitutional Protection of Foreign Travel, 81 Colum. L. Rev. 902 (1981). The fundamental right of a citizen is to enter his own country so that he is not stateless with no place he can lawfully be, and that analysis has been developed more in the law now than it had been in 1967. Alternatively, could a judge impose a penalty without a statutory basis (beyond the designation of the act as unlawful)? Historically, some U.S. states provided this authority which was called the power to impose punishment for "common law crimes", and there are some that still do and there are others, such as Michigan that don't define key crimes that were crimes at common law, such as murder, other than in case law and simply set punishments by statute for these otherwise undefined crimes. As recently as 1947, a majority of U.S. states had at least some common law crimes. Many states codified their criminal laws in the wake of the Model Penal Code in the 1960s even though all states adapted it to their local needs and only a minority of states adopted a penal code close based upon it. The Model Penal Code made it easier to think of what had previous been an ill defined and massive legislative task into a more manageable and finite project for ambitious reformist legislators (an attitude and approach that was common in the U.S. in state legislatures in the late 1960s and early 1970s). But, the federal judiciary has never had this authority (as formally determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1812, just 23 years after the current constitution was adopted), in part, because the federal government does not have plenary legislative authority on all matters and federal courts are likewise courts of limited jurisdiction (while all or almost all states have at least one court of general jurisdiction that can handle any matter that no other court has jurisdiction to handle). From Wikipedia: The notion that common law offenses could be enforced in federal courts was found to be unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). Some have argued that they are inconsistent with the prohibition of ex post facto laws. At the state level, the situation varies. Some states, such as New Jersey, have abolished common law crimes (see State v. Palendrano), while others have chosen to continue to recognize them. In some states, the elements of many crimes are defined mostly or entirely by common law, i.e., by prior judicial decisions. For instance, Michigan's penal code does not define the crime of murder: while the penalties for murder are laid out in statute, the actual elements of murder, and their meaning, is entirely set out in case law.
Is it possible that a court of one jurisdiction would apply the laws of another jurisdiction? For example could a case heard in France (by a French court) apply the laws of the US? If no, then what is the point of such clauses? Yes. This can be done and the example you provide could happen. This is done in civil cases, but not in criminal cases. The other main exception is that a court will not apply another jurisdiction's tax laws, although this is less absolute and the other jurisdiction's tax laws may still be considered as relevant to a civil dispute, so long as they are not enforced. For example, I have litigated a case where the events took place in France in a U.S. Court where the court had jurisdiction over the parties and the relevant choice of law rules pointed to French law. The overarching principle of that the law of the place with the most significant connection to the legal issue decided applies. But there are many subsidiary rules that provide clarity in some areas (although the clarity was reduced with the effect of making forum law apply more often, in the 1960s-1980s after a previous regime of more black and white rules). A clause like this is generally effective if it the parties have any connection to the forum chosen. It is a close cousin, although not nearly so strongly preferred in the law, of an arbitration clause. Also do such clauses go by other names than &quot;attornment&quot; clauses? This article points out such a name is specific to Canada. Yes. In the U.S. an &quot;attornment&quot; clause is a provision that requires a party to a contract to affirmatively declare upon notice from the other party if the attorning party claims that the other party is in breach of the contract or has unfulfilled obligations (with the attorning party waiving any claims for breach of contract not identified at that time). An &quot;attornment&quot; clause is normally found in a lease or secured promissory note and facilitates the transfer of the leased property or secured debt in a way that the new owner can know that there is no risk that it is already in default apart from the transferor's representation. Otherwise, the aggrieved party wouldn't have to mention anything until the statute of limitations arrived. All of the meanings, including the Canadian one, go back to the notion of affirming the existence of certain rights in advance of a dispute arising between the parties. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with, and the rights of the Parties shall be governed by, the laws of the Province of Québec and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein (excluding any conflict of law rule or principle of such laws that might refer such interpretation or enforcement to the laws of another jurisdiction). The language above is a choice of law clause. The Parties hereby irrevocably attorn to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Québec, judicial District of Montreal, with respect to any matters arising pursuant hereto. The language above is a choice of forum clause, a.k.a. choice of jurisdiction clause, a.k.a. choice of venue clause.
Without regards to the actual case and the particular countries involved, I am wondering how it is even possible that a court in one country orders the whole another country to do something, let alone when the two countries do not even formally have diplomatic relations. The main statute that is relevant in the U.S. is the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FISA) of 1976. In general foreign states are immune from liability in U.S. courts (and most courts of the developed world) subject to certain exceptions, the most common of which are as follows: Foreign state waives its immunity explicitly or implicitly Commercial activities by foreign state in or directly affecting the United States Property taken in violation of international law is at issue Rights in U.S. property acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated in the United States are at issue Money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury, death or damage to or loss of property caused by its tortious act or omission, occurring in the United States Enforcement of an arbitration agreement made by the foreign state with or for a private party Money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking or their support, if the foreign state is a designated sponsor of terrorism Admiralty lawsuit to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel or cargo of the foreign state, based on commercial activity The exception above in bold was probably the one applied in the North Korean case. The only countries to which that exception applies are North Korea, Syria, Sudan and Iran. (There are also separate similar rules related to countries with whom the U.S. is in a declared war.) There is sporadic ongoing constitutional separation of powers litigation in the U.S. over whether a FISA authorized lawsuit can proceed over the objections of the President as expressed by the U.S. State Department. The argument that FISA is unconstitutional in this context is that diplomacy and foreign policy is exclusively an executive branch power to the exclusion of Congress and the judiciary, but for the most part, this extreme position has been rejected in recent years. A conservative U.S. Supreme Court, however, could revisit this question (conservative judges tend to favor more absolute executive branch authority in foreign affairs). Once a party wins, however, the winner needs to identify foreign assets subject to the jurisdiction of the court from which to collect the judgment, such as gold deposits or U.S. governmental or corporate bonds or ships docked in U.S. ports, owned by the country. In strong contrast to the case above, the UK media recently overtly demonstrated disobedience of a New Zealand court name suppression order: a man arrested in NZ for allegedly committing an appalling crime was granted temporary name suppression, and that was ignored by the UK media. I am wondering if there is anything that would stop a New Zealand court to hold the UK to account just like the US court just did North Korea. In the New Zealand case, the remedy would be to bring suit against the particular newspapers or reporters involved, rather than the state. But, the U.K. might not enforce those judgments if those defendants lost, so enforcement might be limited to New Zealand based assets and persons, and then, only if the New Zealand court found that it had jurisdiction over the defendants under New Zealand law. So, this isn't really analogous. So, in general, are there any internationally recognised laws/treaties/protocols etc. that define if/when a court in one country can assert jurisdiction over the whole another country and hold it to account? Or is that completely up to the court and whatever extremes it dares to come up with? See above in the U.S. case. Most countries have similar statutes or case law to FISA which codified the case law applying customary international law at the time that it was adopted. One example that comes into my mind is the European Court of Human Rights: if a country signed the European Convention on Human Rights, it can be held to account by the court. But what conventions, if any, can be applied to the two cases above? The European Court of Human Rights case is one of consent to the jurisdiction of an international body by treaty. Countries like the UK and NZ have statutes or treaties governing when a foreign judgment (e.g. a judgment from a New Zealand court) will be recognized domestically. There are also usually laws governing when people present in one state will be extradited to another, usually in the form of a bilateral treaty between the affected states.
One does not introduce statutes in a trial, criminal of civil. Rather, one introduces facts. The judge will present &quot;the law&quot;, and will present it in a digested form in the form of interpreted instructions to the jury about what the law says. Jurors are not required to interpret the meaning of statutes, because jurors are also not expected to know the relevant case law surrounding a statute. A party might make a motion to the judge where the argument depends in part on the wording of a statute. Then there is a standard but jurisdiction-dependent way of referring to s statute, e.g. ORS 164.015, RCW 9A.56.010. For Minnesota there are three interchangeable forms: &quot;Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 123.45, subdivision 6&quot; which is the same as &quot;MINN. STAT. 123.45 (2008)&quot; or &quot;MINN. STAT. ANN. 123.45 (2008)&quot;, which is for statutes. You have to look it up on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis – here is the answer that Minnesota gives (all legal citations).
If I were a federal prosecutor (which I'm emphatically not), I might try to charge you under 18 USC § 32 (a) (5): a) Whoever willfully— [...] (5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft; [...] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both. Since you clearly know, or believe, that this has the potential to interfere with piloting, which would obviously be a serious danger to people on board the aircraft, I'd argue you would be acting with "reckless disregard for the safety of human life." If your conduct results in anybody's death, then life imprisonment and/or the death penalty are also on the table, under 18 USC § 34.
Jurisdiction is a complex topic, and any detailed answer is going to depend on the national law of the states in question. However, there are two general principles to bear in mind: Jurisdiction is rarely exclusive; it is possible to be subject to civil or criminal jurisdiction in any state where you do business; and Jurisdiction can (usually) be accepted or waived by contract. This is the practical answer to your question: almost every contract contains a clause saying something like: "The Parties agree that the law of Norway applies to all matters arising under this agreement and agree that all lawsuits concerning the subject matter of this agreement shall be brought exclusively in the Norwegian Super Deluxe Court for the district of Oslo. The parties waive, to the extent possible under the relevant law, all rights to litigate matters related to this Agreement in any other court." These choice-of-forum provisions are not 100% enforceable--and, again, a lot is going to depend on the law of the forum you're disclaiming--but they often are, in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.
It depends on the situation In a criminal case When the government is prosecuting a criminal case, they are represented by a prosecutor. For a federal case, that prosecutor would be a United States Attorney or Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA). For a state case, they'd be a District Attorney, Deputy District Attorney, or Assistant District Attorney. In civil cases Generally, the Federal government would be represented in civil cases by lawyers with no special title. In many cases, these would be lawyers working for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, but other agencies also have lawyers to represent them in more specialized litigation—for example, the IRS Chief Counsel's Office. A state government would be represented in civil cases by lawyers from the state Attorney General's office (here is California's, for instance). Before the Supreme Court When the Federal government is before the Supreme Court, they are represented by lawyers from the Office of the Solicitor General. That could be the Solicitor General themself, a Deputy Solicitor General, or an Assistant to the Solicitor General. In cases where the government is not a party, the office may be asked for its input on a case by the Supreme Court via a Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.