>>But imagine in the future that there really is just about no benefit. Lets say that we have something like Star Trek transporters, and they are very cheap and common. And anywhere in the state of New Hampshire (or in the country, or on the Earth, or in Earth orbit) could be reached quickly, cheaply, and easily.
Under those circumstances would you really rule that the phrase "that no crime or offense ought to be tried in any other county or judicial district than that in which it is committed" would be inapplicable, even when the listed exception does not pertain to the case, and in the absence of any amendment?<<
Tim -
I'm not sure I'm understanding your question. What listed exception do you refer to?
As a general response, I'd say that if the reason for the stipulation that no trial should ever take place in any county other than the one in which the crime was committed no longer applied, then it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that the law should be changed, or the Constitution amended.
In any case, the notion that a trial should never be moved from one jurisdiction or venue to another is by no means a universally accepted principle in US law. It happens all the time, usually because the defense argues that the accused can't get a fair trial due to extensive local news coverage. And that's not a recent phenomenon, either. I seem to recall that the trial of the British soldiers who were involved in the Boston Massacre was moved because it was felt that the emotions of the local people would prevent them from rendering a fair verdict.
- Allen |
