Law is not like code or math: you don't follow an inexorable algorithm in law to arrive at the only possible interpretation of the law. When you do this kind of analysis and arrive at this kind of absurdity, more often than not, courts will find that the law actually doesn't permit this absurdity.
In this specific case, it's already possible to move jury trials to other districts for difficulty of finding impartial jurors, so it's almost certain that the courts would similarly rule that doing a similar change of venue poses no constitutional issue whatsoever.
Yeah, I agree, courts are made up of people are designed to deal with the gray area as best they can. Courts deal with complex cases all the time. One thing they often look to in these gaps is intention.
“District and state” was intended to provide a fair trial of your peers. Simply not having a trial would not be a fair trial, however choosing a nearby venue would likely pass the fair and reasonable test.
But how do you explain that one knew what they where doing was unlawful? How can they if the law clearly states they cannot be prosecuted? If the law states that you cannot be fairly tried in that location, then to put them on trial would be a violation of rule of law. The people explicitly spoke through their representatives. If it was not specific or too specific, then the law needs to be changed by the legislature. This 'interpreting' the law to the detriment of the defendant is generally bullshit. If you use the basis of reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty, then it should result in defendant being dismissed. You can't expect people to telepathically know the law means something contrary to what it literally says.
The US uses a common law legal system.. meaning the law isn't just what it says.. it's also how it's interpreted by judges and how it has been interpreted in the past.
You're arguing that we should use a civil law legal system... but you're several hundred years too late for that debate... and it has no relevance to this question.
So back to the interpretation: If this case went to the supreme court, why do you believe they would say: welp guess you're free? They also have the ability to say: Since the constitution says what it says, the court districts must be redrawn, and therefore the defendant must be tried in the redrawn Idaho district court. That's the way it would be solved by the legislature, and that's the way the court is going to force it to be resolved if the legislature doesn't.. because at no point did the legislature intend for a piece of land to be outside of our laws. An oversight is not intention.
I understand that it's a common law system. But there's also no precedent or prior ruling about this, thus not existing in common law.
I think you are right about the redistricting decision. I still think it's wrong and lazy for the legislature to have the courts handle it. This sort of indifference is sloppy and leads to inefficiencies and injustices, such as appeals, retrials, or misinterpretation. The courts really shouldn't be doing much interpreting. The system is supposed to use hundreds of representatives to be the voice of the people, not 1-9 judges.
I also see that you are saying that people should be guilty if they violated the spirit of the law. This doesn't currently happen. Look at the tax loopholes in wide use. My opinion is that you can't expect someone to know that something is wrong if the statute says something contrary.
I agree with that... except the last part. You can be guilty of violating the spirit of a law. See for example Wickard v Filburn that forced Filburn to pay a fine for violating limits on wheat.
Luckily most of these go the other way.. like in Jacobellis v Ohio where the judge says "I'll know it when I see it" to describe his threshold for obscenity... overturning his conviction. [Edit: On the other hand, obscenity is only illegal because it was ruled it's not covered by the first amendment (even though the exception isn't listed in the first amendment)... allowing the legislature to pass laws restricting it.]
The Constitution is filled with more examples: Point to where in the Constitution it says you have a right to privacy, which is the basis for Row v Wade. Or point to where it says "beyond a reasonable doubt", a standard set in Winship.
In my opinion, the only thing Wickard v Filburn should be used for an example of is government overreach and misguided inclusion of n-order impacts. Growing food for your family should not be a crime. What a racket. We might as well find people guilty of conspiricy to commit murder simply because they didn't report a murderer when they saw them speeding prior to the crime. It could have stopped it!
The reason it's supposed to go that other way is because you are to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Any benefit of doubt or uncertainty is supposed to go to the defense.
It likely depends on the crime. If the crime committed is obscure and jurisdiction dependent, that argument might hold weight in court. If it is something like murder, the court will likely rule that that is a crime everywhere and it was unreasonable to assume you could get away with murder .
But how would they rule on the defendant's rights? If the law says that the person has the right to be tried by a jury in the same state and district, then it seems to be a blatant violation.
Just because a crime may be universal, doesn't mean tha people can have their rights violated.
The easiest fix for all of this is to have the legislature do their job and amend the law.
As discussed above, the ability of a court to change a venue because an impartial jury can't be obtained is well established. A judge would order a change of venue, the defendant would likely appeal, and the appeals court would find that changing the venue isn't an infringement of the defendant's rights.
>You can't expect people to telepathically know the law means something contrary to what it literally says.
This is exactly what a common law system expects you to know if what the law literally says is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that murder is legal if you get your intended victim in this area, and the law would expect you to say "hah, that's funny it says that, but I'm still not allowed to kill people"
Maybe if you had a Napoleonic system you could get away with it.
ok, sure, but I am going to be very surprised if anyone can find a high up precedent saying if you murder people in a tricky way it's ok.
So to clarify further, assuming no precedent had ever been recorded on this or a similar matter, the common law interpretation would probably be that you were expected not to murder people in this situation even though literal interpretation of the law would seem to state it was allowed.
But the real question is whether the defendant's rights were violated. Even if one knew they weren't supposed to murder, would a prosecution contrary to what's written in law violate their rights? At the least, it seems like a due process violation.
You forgot the second sentence for context: How can they if the law clearly states they cannot be prosecuted?
It is if the law is not defined. You can't be in violation of a non-existent law. As the maxim goes, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I sort of agree. What I find appalling is that the legislature is aware if the issue and refuses to fix it (do their job). If it's really that clear cut, then surely the people can speak through their representatives to fix this issue.
In this specific case, it's already possible to move jury trials to other districts for difficulty of finding impartial jurors, so it's almost certain that the courts would similarly rule that doing a similar change of venue poses no constitutional issue whatsoever.