ringbearer
Former Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2021
- Messages
- 639
- Reaction score
- 3,989
I have a question for any of our wonderful lawyers. Here's the relevant US Code about civil and criminal jurisdiction in National Forests:
16 U.S. Code § 480 - Civil and criminal jurisdiction
It reads:
The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over persons within national forests shall not be affected or changed by reason of their existence, except so far as the punishment of offenses against the United States therein is concerned; the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such national forest is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens, or be absolved from their duties as citizens of the State.
I have always taken this to mean that unless the offense is against the US Government, in National Forests, cases are tried by the People of the state in question (in Gabby's case, the People of Wyoming).
I am looking at a case where a serial killer committed all his murders in national forests - he was tried by the State in each case (three states) not in federal court (FBI criminologists were heavily involved in helping out, though). Right now, BL's crimes are against Federal codes (banking laws), but I do believe that when murder charges are brought, it will be by the State of Wyoming.
Thoughts?
eta: my post assumes you're talking about an eventual murder charge. The current charge is a federal crime, so will most definitely be in federal court, imo.
Apparently, it is extremely complicated. Here's a case that discusses a very similar circumstance. It's quite dense. From the link:
In summary, the Court concludes that the Weeks Act permitted the Untied States to obtain concurrent jurisdiction over national forest lands; that the State of Michigan granted concurrent jurisdiction to the United States over national forest lands; that the Oxford Lake Parcel on which Timmerman's body was found was acquired by the United States in 1939; that acceptance of jurisdiction by the United States over property acquired before 1940 was presumed; that there was no affirmative act at the time the property was acquired that would suggest that the United States rejected jurisdiction; and that there has been no affirmative act subsequent to the United States's acquisition of the property sufficient to constitute retrocesssion of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court finds that the United States had jurisdiction to prosecute crimes occurring on the Oxford Lake parcel of the Manistee National Forest.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...r-00076/pdf/USCOURTS-miwd-1_99-cr-00076-4.pdf