Abstract

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees a defendant the right to be tried in the district where they committed the crime. This principle of venue is deeply embedded in the due process rights that were important to the Framers, and courts have abided by it for centuries. With the advent of modern airplanes and the rise in air travel, there has been an increase in crimes being committed while cruising 30,000 feet in the air. This has created tension between the Constitution and the practicalities of prosecuting intra-flight crimes. Many of these offenses can be classified as “continuous,” which means they can be prosecuted in any district where the offense was started, continued, or completed. It is not so simple for crimes classified as “point-in-time” offenses, which include offenses like battery and assault. Courts across the United States have taken a myriad of approaches, but charges are most commonly brought in the district where the plane lands. While Congress and the Department of Justice have given some guidance, courts are still left with more questions than answers. This Note argues the landing district is an unconstitutional venue for point-in-time offenses committed intra-flight, as there is no connection between that district and the crime in issue.

How to Cite