This Essay explores the recently resolved circuit split between the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits regarding the proper venue for crimes committed on an airplane during flight. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit held that the proper venue for trying an assault that happened midflight was the district over which the airplane was flying when the assault occurred. While flyover districts may seem like a surprising and inconvenient choice for venue, flyover districts are the only constitutionally proper venue for point-in-time offenses that occur on airplanes during flight. Furthermore, using current aviation tracking protocols and GPS technology, courts can pinpoint the location of a plane easily and accurately at any point during flight. The main obstacle to prosecuting criminal cases in flyover districts is not technological but human. Flight attendants lack established standards and procedures for documenting and reporting incidents as they occur, especially incidents of sexual assault. This Essay provides recommendations for standardized form recording and reporting procedures to enable courts to accurately and constitutionally prosecute crimes that occur during flight. While flyover districts may be judicially uneconomical, until Congress steps in to provide a statutory basis for prosecuting crimes outside the district in which they occurred, flyover districts remain the proper venue for crimes committed on an airplane during flight.
Cite as: Megan E. McCarthy, Where Should We Land?: Flyover Districts as Proper Venue for Crimes Committed in Air on Domestic Flights, 111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 55 (2021).
Cite as: Jamila Johnson & Talia MacMath, State Courts Must Combat Mass Incarceration by Granting Broader Retroactivity to New Rules Than is Provided Under the Federal Teague v. Lane Test, 111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 33 (2021).
Cite as: Matthew B. Kugler, Mariana Oliver, Jonathan Chu & Nathan R. Lee, American Law Enforcement Responses to COVID-19, 111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 19 (2021).
Cite as: Karl T. Muth, Learning Facts from Fiction in Jay-Z’s 99 Problems, 111 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 1 (2020).
Cite as: Deandra Banks, COVID in Menard, 110 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 109 (2020).
Cite as: Kevin Dugar, Pandemic Thoughts While on Lock, 110 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 107 (2020).
Cite as: Ryan T. Cannon, Sick Deal: Injustice and Plea Bargaining During COVID-19, 110 J. Crim. L. & Criminology
Online 91 (2020).
Nationwide calls to “Defund the Police,” largely attributable to Black Lives Matter demonstrations, have motivated derivative calls for public school districts to consider “defunding” school resource officer (“SRO/police”) programs. To be sure, school districts’ SRO/police programs endure as a subject of persistent scholarly and public scrutiny, particularly relating to how a school’s SRO/police presence influences the school’s student discipline reporting policies and practices. How schools report student discipline and whether the process involves referrals to law enforcement agencies matter, particularly as they may fuel a growing “school-to-prison pipeline.” The “school-to-prison pipeline” research literature features two general empirical claims. One is that public schools’ increasingly “legalized” approach toward student discipline increases the probability that students will be thrust into the criminal justice system. A second, distributional claim is that these adverse consequences disproportionately involve students of color, boys, students from low-income households, and other vulnerable student sub-groups. Results from our analyses that draw from the nation’s leading data set on public school crime and safety, supplemented by data on state-level mandatory reporting requirements and district-level per pupil spending, provide mixed support for these two claims. We find that a school’s SRO/police presence corresponds with an increased probability that the school will report student incidents to law enforcement agencies. However, we do not find support in the school-level data for the broad distributional claims. While we take no normative positions on these complex and nuanced issues, we feel empirical evidence should inform the already ongoing legal and public policy debates on the future of school SRO/police programs.
Cite as: Michael Heise & Jason P. Nance, Following Data: The “Defund the Police” Movement’s Implications for Elementary and Secondary Schools, 110 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 63 (2020).
Cite as: Chesa Boudin, The Opportunity in Crisis: How 2020’s Challenges Present New Opportunities for Prosecutors, 110 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 23 (2020).
Cite as: Thea Johnson, Crisis and Coercive Pleas, 110 J. Crim. L. & Criminology Online 1 (2020).