{"id":2676,"date":"2020-12-01T00:00:49","date_gmt":"2020-12-01T00:00:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=2676"},"modified":"2020-12-01T00:00:49","modified_gmt":"2020-12-01T00:00:49","slug":"venue-above-the-clouds-prosecuting-in-flight-crimes-by-creating-a-high-skies-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2020\/12\/01\/venue-above-the-clouds-prosecuting-in-flight-crimes-by-creating-a-high-skies-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Venue Above the Clouds: Prosecuting In-Flight Crimes By Creating A &#8220;High Skies&#8221; Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Occurring high in the skies above, crimes committed aboard aircraft capture our imagination. These crimes serve as ingredients for Hollywood spectacle, from hijackings,<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">1<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">1. <em>See, e.g.<\/em>, AIR FORCE ONE (Beacon Pictures 1997) (presenting an example of a Hollywood film centered around a plane hijacking).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> to poison darts,<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">2<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">2. <em>See<\/em> NON-STOP (Studio Canal 2014).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> to smuggled crates full of venomous snakes.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_3');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_3');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_3\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">3<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">3. <em>See<\/em> SNAKES ON A PLANE (Mutual Film Company 2006).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_3').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_3', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> But what happens after the action ends? Behind the scenes, prosecution of in-flight crimes remains in a state of flux. The debate about how to determine a proper venue exemplifies this shifting legal landscape. Recently, statutory and constitutional questions of venue have divided courts and sewn uncertainty as to where defendants charged with in-flight crimes can face justice. This Note calls upon Congress to revise a well-known statute in order to fix the escalating problem of in-flight venue and bring this aspect of criminal procedure into the twenty-first century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The federal circuits disagree about where to lay criminal venue for in-flight crimes. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit decided <em>United States v. Lozoya<\/em>, which involved the prosecution of an assault\u2014an unremarkable passenger scuffle\u2014committed during a commercial flight.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_4');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_4');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_4\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">4<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">4. 920 F.3d 1231, 1233\u201334 (9th Cir. 2019).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_4').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_4', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> The defendant was charged in the district where the aircraft landed.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_5');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_5');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_5\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">5<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">5. <em>Id<\/em>. at 1238.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_5').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_5', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> However, the <em>Lozoya<\/em> court found that the proper venue for prosecuting an assault was the district over which the aircraft was flying during the assault itself.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_6');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_6');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_6\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">6<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">6. <em>Id. <\/em>at 1241.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_6').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_6', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> Key to the Ninth Circuit\u2019s holding was its characterization of the assault as an instantaneous offense rather than a \u201ccontinuing offense\u201d that spanned multiple districts.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_7');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_7');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_7\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">7<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">7. <em>Id.<\/em> at 1239.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_7').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_7', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> As a point-in-time offense, the court found that the typical statute used for in-flight venue, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3237(a), was inapplicable, and therefore venue was improper in the district where the aircraft landed (long after the assault was over).<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_8');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_8');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_8\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">8<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">8. <em>Id.<\/em> at 1239\u201340.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_8').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_8', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> Consequently, the Ninth Circuit split with the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits,<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_9');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_9');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_9\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">9<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">9. As of the publication of this Note, the Ninth Circuit has granted review en banc of the panel\u2019s decision. See United States v. Lozoya, 944 F.3d 1229, 1229\u201330 (9th Cir. 2019). However, even if the&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_9');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_9').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_9', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> which have interpreted \u00a7 3237(a) to allow prosecution of in-flight crimes in any district through which the aircraft moves during the flight.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_10');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_10');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_10\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">10<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">10. See United States v. Cope, 676 F.3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir. 2012); United States v. Breitweiser, 357 F.3d 1249, 1253\u201354 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1091 (2004); United States v. McCulley, 673&nbsp;&#x2026; <span class=\"footnote_tooltip_continue\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_10');\">Continue reading<\/span><\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_10').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_10', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> This circuit split suggests that the intersection of in-flight crime and venue could benefit from academic analysis. Indeed, in light of a documented rise of inflight crime\u2014including disturbing accounts of sexual assault relayed in the courts and popular media\u2014it is imperative to answer this question of where to prosecute these point-in-time offenses.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_11');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_11');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_11\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">11<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">11. <em>See<\/em> infra Part I.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_11').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_11', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This Note will argue that the <em>Lozoya<\/em> court properly rejected \u00a7 3237(a) in light of constitutional venue safeguards. Despite the fact that venue depends upon the nature of the particular elements of the underlying crime,<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_12');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_12');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_12\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">12<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">12. <em>See<\/em> United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 279 (1999).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_12').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_12', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> \u00a7 3237(a) depends on broad interpretations of statutory terms like \u201ccontinuous\u201d or \u201cinterstate commerce\u201d to reach in-flight crimes that often have little, if anything, to do with these legal concepts.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_13');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_13');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_13\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">13<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">13. <em>See<\/em> <em>infra<\/em> subpart III.B.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_13').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_13', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> The <em>Lozoya<\/em> court, then, was correct to point out that courts have used \u00a7 3237(a) to create a legal fiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Nevertheless, while the <em>Lozoya<\/em> decision may be legally sound, its holding creates unacceptable venue obstacles for both prosecutors and defendants of in-flight crimes in the age of jetliners.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_14');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_14');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_14\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">14<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">14. <em>See<\/em> <em>infra<\/em> subpart III.C.<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_14').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_14', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> Constitutional limits on criminal venue require a defendant to be tried where the crime occurred. Without a sensible statute to provide venue for in-flight crimes, point-in-time offenses committed during flight could only be laid within a single district. The problem is that district\u2014whose only connection to the crime is existing thirty thousand feet below where the defendant acts\u2014could be highly inconvenient for all of the parties involved, and worse, could be impossible to determine. With the rise of everyday air travel, a new legislative solution is required: one that looks beyond conventional venue borders that exist on the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, this Note proposes looking to an entirely different statute. A small amendment to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3238\u2014better known as the \u201chigh seas\u201d statute\u2014would create a common-sense solution to this unsettled area of criminal procedure. Just as \u00a7 3238 delineates the \u201chigh seas\u201d as a physical zone for venue, so too could it add a clause recognizing a \u201chigh skies\u201d zone of national navigable airspace.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_15');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_2676_1('footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_15');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_15\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">15<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">15. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3238 (2018).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_15').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_2676_1_15', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script> A \u201chigh skies\u201d zone would streamline venue problems by guaranteeing a workable venue for any crime\u2014both point-in-time and continuous\u2014committed during flight. While this solution calls into question assumptions of vertical state territoriality, this Note argues that legal decision makers have long rejected such assumptions in practice when it comes to governing the high skies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This Note will proceed in four parts. Part I will explore the growth of in flight crimes and explain why prosecuting this unique subset of crimes will become more imperative in the future. Part II will provide background on the constitutional limitations on venue, the policies that those limitations serve, and the current federal statutes that could apply to in-flight crimes. Part III will proceed to analyze the circuit split regarding \u00a7 3237(a) and the legal and policy problems of the holdings on both sides. Finally, Part IV will propose that Congress resolve that circuit split by rewriting \u00a7 3238 to include a high skies clause that provides venue for all in-flight crimes, as well as defend that clause against fairness or federalism critiques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To read more, click here: <em><a href=\"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/Venue-Above-the-Clouds-Duggan.pdf\" data-type=\"URL\" data-id=\"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/Venue-Above-the-Clouds-Duggan.pdf\">Venue Above the Clouds: Prosecuting In-Flight Crimes By Creating A &#8220;High Skies&#8221; Law<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_2676_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_2676_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_2676_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_2676_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_1');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_1\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See, e.g.<\/em>, AIR FORCE ONE (Beacon Pictures 1997) (presenting an example of a Hollywood film centered around a plane hijacking).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_2');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_2\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> NON-STOP (Studio Canal 2014).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_3');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_3\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>3<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> SNAKES ON A PLANE (Mutual Film Company 2006).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_4');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_4\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>4<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">920 F.3d 1231, 1233\u201334 (9th Cir. 2019).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_5');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_5\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>5<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>Id<\/em>. at 1238.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_6');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_6\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>6<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>Id. <\/em>at 1241.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_7');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_7\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>7<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>Id.<\/em> at 1239.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_8');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_8\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>8<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>Id.<\/em> at 1239\u201340.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_9');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_9\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>9<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">As of the publication of this Note, the Ninth Circuit has granted review en banc of the panel\u2019s decision. <em>See<\/em> United States v. Lozoya, 944 F.3d 1229, 1229\u201330 (9th Cir. 2019). However, even if the en banc Ninth Circuit joins its sister circuits in their interpretation of \u00a7 3237(a), the thorny issues raised by the <em>Lozoya<\/em> panel would remain. As this Note argues, the solution is to look beyond \u00a7 3237(a) in order to resolve these interpretive problems.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_10');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_10\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>10<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> United States v. Cope, 676 F.3d 1219, 1225 (10th Cir. 2012); United States v. Breitweiser, 357 F.3d 1249, 1253\u201354 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1091 (2004); United States v. McCulley, 673 F.2d 346, 350 (11th Cir. 1982).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_11');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_11\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>11<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> infra Part I.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_12');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_12\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>12<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 279 (1999).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_13');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_13\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>13<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> <em>infra<\/em> subpart III.B.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_14');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_14\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>14<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See<\/em> <em>infra<\/em> subpart III.C.<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_2676_1_15');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_2676_1_15\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>15<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3238 (2018).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_2676_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_2676_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_2676_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_2676_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_2676_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_2676_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_2676_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_2676_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_2676_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_2676_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_2676_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_2676_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_2676_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_2676_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The debate about how to determine a proper venue exemplifies this shifting legal landscape. Recently, statutory and constitutional questions of venue have divided courts and sewn uncertainty as to where defendants charged with in-flight crimes can face justice. This Note calls upon Congress to revise a well-known statute in order to fix the escalating problem of in-flight venue and bring this aspect of criminal procedure into the twenty-first century.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69,46,52],"tags":[380,381,666,669],"class_list":["post-2676","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-issue-1-print-volume-106","category-notes","category-print-volume-106","tag-in-flight-crime","tag-in-flight-venue","tag-united-states-v-lozoya","tag-venue"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2676","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2676"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2676\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}