T-3 case

Last updated

The T-3 case, formally United States v. Escamilla, 467 F.2d 341 (4th Cir. 1972), was a series of legal disputes following a death on the Arctic ice island T-3 in July 1970. In a dispute over some raisin wine, one member of the crew of a research station was alleged to have shot and killed another. Both men were Americans, but the case took place outside U.S. territorial waters, and the case raised a number of questions on the jurisdiction of criminal law in special circumstances. After a trial, appeal, and retrial, the defendant was acquitted, but the matter of jurisdiction was not settled until United States federal law was revised in 1984.

Contents

Background

T-3, also known as Fletcher's Ice Island, was a large iceberg floating in the Arctic Ocean, measuring approximately sixty square kilometres. It was initially occupied by the US Air Force in 1952, and sporadically thereafter; from October 1962 onwards, it had held a permanent research station operated by the Air Force with mostly civilian employees. [1]

On 16 July 1970, a dispute broke out among the station staff over the alleged theft of home-made raisin wine. Mario Escamilla, the owner of the wine, had been told that Donald Leavitt, a co-worker, had entered his accommodation trailer and taken it. He borrowed a rifle and returned to his trailer to confront Leavitt; the camp leader, Benny Lightsey, stopped him and tried to make Escamilla hand over the rifle. In the subsequent dispute, Lightsey was shot and killed. Both Lightsey and Escamilla were US citizens. [2]

After the incident was reported, an investigation team flew to an American base in Thule, Greenland and then to T-3. The team was composed of intelligence officers from the US Navy and Coast Guard, and an Assistant US Attorney. They returned with Escamilla, via Thule, to Dulles Airport in Virginia, where he was arrested to stand trial for first degree murder. [3]

Before Escamilla could be tried, a key question was which court had jurisdiction. At the time of the death, T-3 was in pack ice about 240 kilometers north of Ellesmere Island, at 84°45.8′N106°24.4′W / 84.7633°N 106.4067°W / 84.7633; -106.4067 . [2] This placed it within an area considered Canadian territory by the Canadian government, though potentially disputed by other nations. [1] The iceberg itself was thought to have been calved from an ice shelf on Ellesmere Island in Canada, [3] though it had at one point been grounded on the Alaskan coast. [4] No legal precedent covered whether icebergs like this should be treated as islands, as ships, or as an extension of land, and there was recent precedent (1970, Regina v. Tootalik ) for a Canadian court upholding jurisdiction over sea ice some distance from solid land. [1]

In the event, the Canadian government had no desire to become involved in the trial, and explicitly waived any jurisdiction they might have had. The Department for External Affairs stated that they wished to avoid any appearance of interfering with a criminal trial in order to resolve a complex point of international law, but that this was without any prejudice to their territorial claims. [3]

This left Escamilla to be tried by an American court. After some discussion, Judge Oren Lewis of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia allowed the case to proceed to trial, following the prosecution's argument that the case was covered by the "special maritime jurisdiction" of the United States Criminal Code, which extended American jurisdiction to "any vessel belonging ... to the United States". [1] Judge Lewis indicated that in the absence of clear precedent, this was not a definite decision, and he expected the matter to be resolved on appeal. [2]

In the trial, Escamilla's defence argued that he had taken the rifle in the belief that Leavitt was likely to be violent when confronted; that Lightsey was himself acting worryingly when he asked to be given the rifle; and that the rifle was defective and could have gone off accidentally. A weapons expert testified in support of the last point, and the defence called five character witnesses from his home in California to testify to his peaceful and non-violent nature. However, only one was allowed to testify. [2] [5] The defence also argued that the jury should be instructed to consider the special conditions which were present on T-3 – for example, the lack of law enforcement and the absence of lockable doors – and how they might affect what constituted negligent conduct. The judge refused to make such a direction. [4] The jury found Escamilla not guilty of second-degree murder on the high seas, but did find him guilty of the lesser offence of involuntary manslaughter on the high seas. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, but bailed pending the outcome of an appeal. [1]

The appeal was made on two grounds; the first was the question of jurisdiction, and the second was the argument that there were errors in the conduct of the trial itself. It was taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which heard the case on 17 August 1970. [2]

The court sat en banc as a panel of six judges, reflecting the complexity of the case. They upheld the appeal and ordered a retrial on the basis that the initial trial should not have restricted the number of character witnesses, and should have directed the jury to consider whether the Arctic conditions would require different standards for determining criminality. However, they divided evenly on the matter of jurisdiction, and so upheld the provisional ruling that an American court was able to try the case. [4]

On retrial, with these new provisions, Escamilla was acquitted of the charges. [2]

Resolving the jurisdiction question

The appeals court did not make a clear ruling on the matter of jurisdiction. This left the question unclear should a similar issue arise in future cases, either in Arctic waters or in Antarctica. Observers noted that the practicality of a trial would have been in severe doubt had Escamilla, Lightsey, or even Leavitt been Canadians – a plausible situation given the degree of international operations – and that any ambiguity in the trial under these circumstances could potentially have caused a major international incident. [2]

The ambiguity was later resolved (at least for the United States) by an amendment to the Federal Criminal Code, which added a provision establishing federal jurisdiction when "...the offense is committed by or against a national of the United States at a place outside the jurisdiction of any nation", intended in part to address these issues. [6] It became law as 18 U.S.C.   § 7(7) in 1984. [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Common law</span> Law created by judicial precedent

Common law is the body of law primarily developed through judicial decisions rather than statutes. Although common law may incorporate certain statutes, it is largely based on precedent—judicial rulings made in previous similar cases. The presiding judge determines which precedents to apply in deciding each new case.

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law – in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions bars only an identical prosecution for the same offence except when the defendant is a servicemember as the courts have ruled that the military courts are a separate sovereign, therefore servicemembers can be held in two separate trials for exactly the same charges; however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger – it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

In the United States, a state court is a law court with jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases. States often provide their trial courts with general jurisdiction and state trial courts regularly have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their subject-matter jurisdiction arises only under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. They hear appeals of cases from the United States district courts and some U.S. administrative agencies, and their decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the entire United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States district court</span> Trial court of the U.S. federal judiciary

The United States district courts are the trial courts of the U.S. federal judiciary. There is one district court for each federal judicial district. Each district covers one U.S. state or a portion of a state. There is at least one federal courthouse in each district, and many districts have more than one. District court decisions are appealed to the U.S. court of appeals for the circuit in which they reside, except for certain specialized cases that are appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of the United Kingdom</span>

The United Kingdom has three distinctly different legal systems, each of which derives from a particular geographical area for a variety of historical reasons: English law, Scots law, Northern Ireland law, and, since 2007, calls for a fourth type, that of purely Welsh law as a result of Welsh devolution, with further calls for a Welsh justice system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Cassation (France)</span> Highest judicial court in France

The Court of Cassation is the supreme court for civil and criminal cases in France. It is one of the country's four superior courts, along with the Council of State, the Constitutional Council and the Jurisdictional Disputes Tribunal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a "not guilty" verdict

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the criminal prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Verdict</span> Formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters submitted to it by the judge

In law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge. In a bench trial, the judge's decision near the end of the trial is simply referred to as a finding. In England and Wales, a coroner's findings used to be called verdicts but are, since 2009, called conclusions.

In criminal law, a sentence is the punishment for a crime ordered by a trial court after conviction in a criminal procedure, normally at the conclusion of a trial. A sentence may consist of imprisonment, a fine, or other sanctions. Sentences for multiple crimes may be a concurrent sentence, where sentences of imprisonment are all served together at the same time, or a consecutive sentence, in which the period of imprisonment is the sum of all sentences served one after the other. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by street time period of parole, supervised release or probation until the total sentence is completed.

The court system of Canada is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. In the courts, the judiciary interpret and apply the law of Canada. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.

A new trial or retrial is a recurrence of a court case. A new trial may potentially be ordered for some or all of the matters at issue in the original trial. Depending upon the rules of the jurisdiction and the decision of the court that ordered the new trial, a new trial may occur if:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of Singapore</span> Lower division of national supreme court

The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters and insolvency matters respectively. In 2014 the Family Division of the High Court was created, and in 2015 the Singapore International Commercial Court ("SICC") was established as a division of the High Court. The current divisions of the High Court are the General Division and the Appellate Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal of Singapore</span> Supreme appellate court of Singapore

The Court of Appeal of Singapore is the highest court in the judicial system of Singapore. It is the upper division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the lower being the High Court. The Court of Appeal consists of the chief justice, who is the president of the Court, and the judges of the Court of Appeal. The chief justice may ask judges of the High Court to sit as members of the Court of Appeal to hear particular cases. The seat of the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court Building.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme court</span> Highest court in a jurisdiction

In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court, also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal, and court of final appeal, is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are binding on all other courts in a nation and are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts. A supreme court can also, in certain circumstances, act as a court of original jurisdiction.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976), is a Supreme Court case involving Harry Lee Williams' conviction of assault on his former landlord in Harris County, Texas. While awaiting trial Williams was unable to post bail. He was tried in his prison uniform, and later was found guilty. He sought a writ of habeas corpus saying being tried in a prison uniform violated his Constitutional rights in accordance with the 14th Amendment. The Court of Appeals ruled that the accused does not have to stand trial in identifiable prison clothes and Williams’ right to due process was violated. The Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the conviction, on June 21, 1976.

Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that created an "inevitable discovery" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure, inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree". In Nix, the Court ruled that evidence that would inevitably have been discovered by law enforcement through legal means remained admissible.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Wilkes, Daniel (27 October 2009). "Law for special environments: ice islands and questions raised by the T-3 case". Polar Record. 16 (100): 23–27. doi:10.1017/S0032247400062392. S2CID   129713443.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wilkes, Daniel (27 October 2009). "Law for special environments: jurisdiction over polar activities". Polar Record. 16 (104): 701–705. doi:10.1017/S0032247400063646. S2CID   128981257.
  3. 1 2 3 Pharand, Donat (1971). "State Jurisdiction over Ice Island T-3 : The Escamilla Case". Arctic. 24 (2): 82–89. doi: 10.14430/arctic3118 .
  4. 1 2 3 Appeal ruling: 467 F.2d 341 (1972)
  5. ↑ US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. "United States of America, Appellee, v. Mario Jaime Escamilla, Appellant, 467 F.2d 341 (4th Cir. 1972)". Justia.
  6. ↑ Feinberg, Kenneth R. (1981). "Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Proposed Federal Criminal Code". The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 72 (2): 385–399. doi:10.2307/1143000. JSTOR   1143000.
  7. ↑ "Public Law 98-473". Uscode.house.gov. October 12, 1984. Retrieved July 22, 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.