Question for criminal attorneys out there

[JDPriestly]

Isn't the trial venue for criminal trials normally where the crime was committed?

Am I wrong about that?

Isn't it usually the prosecutor who wants the trial in the venue in which the crime occurred? Isn't that supposed to make it easier to get a conviction?

So why are people upset that prosecutors wanted to try Khalid Shaikh Muhammad in New York? Isn't that where he is most likely to be convicted?

I understand the problems with security risks, but actually, isn't the most important thing to hold the trial and try to get a conviction?

Could KSM possibly have grounds for appeal if the normal procedure is not followed with regard to the choice of venue for the trial?

[mdmc]

1. ya can request a change a venue

[ncguy]

2. Well,

there are a couple of questions, intermingled.

As to the question - why are people upset, there are two answers. One is simple politics. Two, it is always a dumb idea to change horses in mid-stream. In this case, he was treated early on as a military prisoner. he was not given the due process and protections under law that criminal defendants are given. A normal criminal defendant, who was treated this way, would have good chance of winning his case on constitutional grounds. So the question then becomes, what will a judge do with this case? On likely answer is the judge will create new law, in order not to allow Khalid to walk. After he does this, the other AUSA can use this ruling as grounds not to provide other criminal defendants with recouse for haivng their rights violated. See the problem?

As to the question of jurisdiction - it would probably not create a viable issue for appeal. Actually having the trial in NY may create the stronger issue for appeal, becuasse the defense could argue that their was no way they could pick a impartial jury.

One thing is certain, this case will forge new legal history. And that may not be good!

[WhiteTara]

4. I haven't thought about this at all before

and I get it. Having taken him as a prisoner, then they should try him in a military court or more rightly, the Hague.

Of course, there are those pesky torture sessions no matter what the venue. I had thought it was mostly about whether or not Scummy and Vadar and * would be indicted for being the war criminals they are.

[JDPriestly]

6. But doesn't the prosecution bring the trial in the venue in which

the crime occurred and then the defendant challenges that venue based on the inability to get an unbiased jury?

Also, isn't KSM different from the defendants being tried in the military courts since the crime he committed took place in the US? The other prisoners in Guantanmo, at least most of them, committed criminal acts in other countries. They would appropriately be prisoners of war. I can see who KSM would not be considered a prisoner of war. How do you argue that he would be a prisoner of war? He wasn't a member of our military. He did not commit a crime overseas or in a war. Under what procedural rules or laws would he be tried in an American military court if he is not a member of our military and the crime for which he is being tried did not take place in a military situation?

Thanks for your comment.

[Old Codger]

3. Constitution

Sixth amendment

Amendment VI


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[happyslug]

5. Unless the Defendant agrees, the hearing MUST be held in an location related to the Crime

This is derived from the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Now, that courts have been generous as to what area has a relationship with a crime. For example during the 1970s a group of Americans of Irish decent were helping buy arms for the IRA. All but one of the transaction was held in Boston or its suburbs. One transaction was held in Dallas Texas. Given the support the IRA had in the Boston area it was decided to try them in Dallas Texas for all the crimes, even through only one of them were done in Dallas. The Defendants objected but they still were tried in Dallas and the fact the trial for ALL of the crimes were held in Texas was upheld since ONE of the Crime was held in Texas (and if I remember right it was a minor crime in Dallas, the major crimes, buying automatic weapons, was done in Boston).

That has been the key to most such cases, Federal Prosecutors will file the charge in a Jurisdiction that has just the slimiest relationship to the crime if the Prosecutors thinks it will help them get a favorable Jury. Another example of this was Tommy Chong's indictment and Conviction in Pittsburgh for selling drug paraphernalia. The reason it was done in Pittsburgh was Chong had opened a store in Pittsburgh and the Federal Government had more faith in getting an conviction in Pittsburgh then anywhere else Tommy Chong had a store that sold drug paraphernalia.

Please note, the above is only if the Defendant does NOT agree to a change in Venue. If the Defendant agrees he waives his right under the Sixth Amendment and can be tried anywhere.

Given the nature of this plot, i.e. most of the hijackers did NOT start at the Airport the fatal fights took off from but smaller commuter flights, it may be possible to try them in any of those locations. One commuter flight, if I remember right, took off from Maine. One of the hijackers tried to get pilot training in Minnesota. They rode up and down the country and anywhere they stop could be viewed as part of the "Crime" and as such meeting the requirement of the Sixth Amendment.

Just comments on how broad the courts have permitted the Government "state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed