Re: Personal jurisdiction (was: DEC vs AltaVista)

Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
>
> I think that Thomas got shafted on this
> claim. Thomas and his wife were acquitted of child pornography charges
> in the Tennessee trial. I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I thought there
> was either decisional law or a rule of criminal procedure or statute that
> required bringing charges based on closely related actions together. For
> example, the US could not have serially tried Timothy McVeigh for each of
> his eight victims until they got a conviction, could they? Why is this
> different? Is it simply the fact that more than one venue was implicated?
>
> I would feel different if the child pornography charges had not been
> brought in the Tennessee venue (because neither child pornography nor
> obscenity is a lesser included offense of the other), but because they
> were, and there was an acquittal, my sense, both as a matter of law and as
> a matter of fairness, is that a subsequent trial on the acquitted charge
> should have been precluded. My take is that the Utah charges would have
> been brought with the Tennessee charges, or been deemed waived.
>
> The Utah court writes, "Tennessee jury made no findings regarding child
> pornography on the bulletin board," but that's either erroneous or a
> highly technical distinction in light of the Tennessee acquittal.
>
> Legally, what am I missing here?

Terry is correct that, in the Tennessee trial, there was a charge for violation of child pornography law (18 USC 2252), though it was brought against Thomas only, not Thomas & wife. He is also correct that Mr. Thomas was acquitted of this charge.

As I read the Utah case, the Section 2252 charge there is related to the distribution of different materials to a different recipient. The fact that Thomas did not ship child pornography to a recipient in Tennessee does not mean that he did not subsequently ship child pornography on a different occasion to a different person in a different transaction. At least that's what I think the government is saying. If I rob a bank in Tennessee, then rob one in Utah, I think the government CAN try me for both crimes in a single trial, but I don't think they HAVE TO. Double jeopardy means only that I can't be tried twice for the SAME crime, not that I can't be tried separately for a separate act that happens to involve the same general offense. Maybe someone with some criminal procedure experience can pipe in here.

Bob Cumbow
<cumbr[_at_]perkinscoie.com> Received on Mon Jun 09 1997 - 16:16:46 GMT