Pendleton had sex with a 15y/o boy in Germany. He was convicted by a German court and served 19 months in a German prison. When he was released the German government deported him to the United States, where he was charged with engaging in noncommercial illicit sexual conduct in a foreign place, in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2423(c) and (f)(1). This law was part of the PROTECT act that criminalize sex with minors in foreign places.
Pendleton was convicted and sentenced to 30yrs in prison. He appealed the decision saying that venue was improper in Delaware and that congress doesn't have the authority to regulate non-commercial activity in a foreign land.
Defendants in a criminal trial have the constitutional right (art. III sec. 2 cl. 3) to be tried in the district where the crime was committed. Pendleton claims that because he left for Germany from the Eastern District of New York, Venue was only proper in the Eastern District of New York. The court disagreed with this assertion saying that "[a] court must initially identify the conduct constituting the offense (the nature of the crime) and then discern the location of the commission of the criminal acts." The court noted that travel to Germany, although part of the crime, was not the main part of the act that congress sought to outlaw. The court then cited 18 U.S.C. sec. 3238's venue provision, that stated venue will be proper in the district where the defendant was arrested, which for Pendleton, was the district of Delaware where he was tried.
After the Jurisdictional element was solved the court, at length, discussed the constitutional element of Pendleton's defense. The court decided that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass such a law and allowed the conviction to stand.
This shows a liberal reading of venue provisions in international criminal cases. The decision also didn't rule out making venue proper in another district, like the one Pendleton left America from. So, venue is proper where you left from or where you came back to, absent some part of your crime being committed in America or a statute stating otherwise.
Pendleton was convicted and sentenced to 30yrs in prison. He appealed the decision saying that venue was improper in Delaware and that congress doesn't have the authority to regulate non-commercial activity in a foreign land.
Defendants in a criminal trial have the constitutional right (art. III sec. 2 cl. 3) to be tried in the district where the crime was committed. Pendleton claims that because he left for Germany from the Eastern District of New York, Venue was only proper in the Eastern District of New York. The court disagreed with this assertion saying that "[a] court must initially identify the conduct constituting the offense (the nature of the crime) and then discern the location of the commission of the criminal acts." The court noted that travel to Germany, although part of the crime, was not the main part of the act that congress sought to outlaw. The court then cited 18 U.S.C. sec. 3238's venue provision, that stated venue will be proper in the district where the defendant was arrested, which for Pendleton, was the district of Delaware where he was tried.
After the Jurisdictional element was solved the court, at length, discussed the constitutional element of Pendleton's defense. The court decided that Congress had the constitutional authority to pass such a law and allowed the conviction to stand.
This shows a liberal reading of venue provisions in international criminal cases. The decision also didn't rule out making venue proper in another district, like the one Pendleton left America from. So, venue is proper where you left from or where you came back to, absent some part of your crime being committed in America or a statute stating otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment