It’s Not Just The Fourth
People are rightly upset about the blatant violations of their Four Amendment rights being carried out under the cover of the War on Terror™ but that is only one of the rights that is being routinely ignored by our government these days.
Badtux noted about a week ago that the Department of Justice had filed charges against Edward Snowden in Alexandria, Virginia, an area with a high concentration of current and former members of the intelligence community and its contractors.
If you look at The Bill of Rights you will see:
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.
Edward Snowden wasn’t in Alexandria, Virginia, so the alleged crimes could not have taken place there. The evidence and witnesses are in Hawaii, so the trial is supposed to take place in Hawaii, which is a state, and has Federal courts. Changes of venue are matters for judges to decide, not the Department of Justice.
It is beginning to look like Snowden may have been hired for his cracking skills, rather than system administration. If that is true, then he was just doing his job, wasn’t he?
3 comments
Actually, if the crime crosses state lines and is thus a federal crime, under Federal venue rules venue could be one of three places:
1) The district court covering the area in which the accused resides (Hawaii), or
2) The district court covering the area in which the victim resides (Virginia), or
3) The location of the premises where the crime occurred (hmm, I guess the NSA’s data center in Maryland).
Prosecutors will typically choose venue based upon where they believe the best chances of conviction will be. Usually that’s the venue where the victim resides, since it’s typically thought that jurors will be more sympathetic to the victim if he is their neighbor. In this case, the victim “resides” in Alexandria Virginia, since that’s where Booz blahblah is headquartered.
Note that this is different from state venue rules which typically are simpler because it’s usual in that case for the accused, victim, and crime scene to all be located in the same county or court district, and if not, then the accused and victim don’t have to travel far to get to the crime scene so it makes sense to hold the trial there. The rule in New York State may very well be that the crime scene is where the trial will be held. But for Federal prosecutions, which by definition cross state lines, it’s not that simple and choice of venue becomes… interesting.
Now, if you *really* want an interesting violation of the Constitution… it’s not every day that you hear about cops violating the *THIRD* Amendment. WTF?
A couple of years ago I read of protesters somewhere in Texas who were about to be arrested but who were wearing shirts printed with the First Amendment on the back. You can get one from the ACLU, and probably from other sources of antiquated/expired documents. %-( Apparently some police were reminded of their schooling, and either did or didn’t arrest, but at least the reminder was planted. Other police seemed not to recognize the thing, and arrested just to be on the safe side. If I am ever healthy enough to return to my hardcore street protesting days, I’m going to get one of those shirts… if you’re provoking cops and liable to be arrested anyway, you may as well be “fashionably” dressed for the occasion. Maybe the judge at least will recognize it… maybe.
Badtux, in a criminal case the victim is just a witness and has no standing. The crimes, if any were committed in Hawaii. I understand why the DoJ wants the case tried in Alexandria, but the Sixth Amendment is rather clear on this point.
Snowden had legal and authorized access to the data, the basis of the alleged crime is sharing it with others, and he did that from Hawaii. As I have already said, the common law doesn’t support a claim of theft.
I would really like to see that Third Amendment case make it through to the Supreme Court. That opinion would certainly be ‘interesting’.
Steve, I would put the First Amendment on the front and on the back:
That would certainly provide some food for thought.