[chapka]

I really don't see how this could possibly work. The questions aren't really the stumpers the original author seems to think they are. They fall into two categories, as far as I can tell: the easy to answer ("show me the rules of procedure you're using!") and the nonsensical ("Since there is no corpus delicti, there is no personal jurisdiction!")

Originally Posted by Campy

in a criminal action, you have to understand the law or it is a reversible error for the court to try you. If you don't understand the law, they can't try you.

This is the first thing I don't understand: the citation given for this proposition appears to be from the Uniform Commercial Code:

(5 UCC Y3-415). "Accommodation Party." One who signs commercial paper in any capacity for purpose lending his name to another party to instrument. Such a party is a surety. Surety is, "One who undertakes to pay money or do other act in the event that his principal fails therein."

which (a) doesn't have any legal force except as enacted by a particular state, (b) doesn't appear to be a correct citation to the UCC, article 5 of which has sections numbered from 101 to 117 (perhaps it's a citation to a state enactment?), and (c) has absolutely nothing to do with criminal law.

I know there are a lot of requirements for criminal defendants--the law has to be specific, the defendant has to be competent to stand trial, the state has to tell the defendant the charge, etc., but I'd like to see on what this very broad statement really depends. It sure isn't the UCC.

In any traffic case or tax case you are called into court and the judge reads the law and then asks, "Do you understand the charges?"
Defendant: No, your Honor, I do not. Judge: "Well, what's so difficult about that charge? Either you drove the wrong-way on a one-way street or you didn't. You can only go one way on that street, and if you go the other way it's a fifty dollar fine. What's so difficult about this that you don't understand?" Defendant: Well, You Honor, it's not the letter of the law, but rather the nature of the law that I don't understand.

I have to side with the judge here. You've admitted that you understand the law under which you were charged--the one that says that you can't go the wrong way down a one-way street. The proposition given above--that you have to understand the law under which you were charged--has been fulfilled. The questions that follow, about the jurisdiction of the court, are a totally different issue. I think it'd be a lot more likely to look something like this:

J: Do you understand that the state legislature passed a law saying you couldn't drive the wrong way on a one-way street?

D: Yes, but...

J: Do you understand that the sign with the little arrow is telling you which way to drive?

D: Yes, but...

J: And you realize that the words "one way" on that sign mean it's a one-way street?

D: Yes, but...

J: And so you understand that on a street with those signs on it, driving the other way is what the law was talking about?

D: Yes, but...

J: Good, so you understand the charges. How do you plead?

There are two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: one is under the Common Law, and the other deals with International Maritime Contracts, under Admiralty Jurisdiction. Equity is Civil, and you said this is a Criminal action, so it seems it would have to be under either the Common Law, or Maritime Law.

What on earth does this have to do with anything? You're talking about the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically, I'm guessing, Article III, which grants certain powers to the Federal judiciary. The traffic court is not a federal court; it's a state court. This is like suing Burger King for false advertising because they don't sell Big Macs, and using as evidence a McDonald's ad. The Constitution doesn't determine what authority the state judiciary has. The Constitution defines the limited powers of the federal judiciary. The state constitution and statutes determine the powers of the state judiciary.

Regardless, the analysis is completely wrong. The Constitution doesn't mention "two criminal jurisdictions . . . Common Law, and . . . International Maritime Contracts". The Constitution states quite clearly that the Federal Courts' authority extends to "all Cases, in Law and Equity," arising under federal law, as well as cases involving admiralty jurisdiction, diveristy of citizenship jurisdiction, or a few other categories. English courts of law at the time of the Founding certainly heard cases based on statutes. So even if this were a federal court, there's nothing preventing it from enforcing a federal criminal statute, as long as that statute's within the Article I powers of the legislature to enact.

But what puzzles me, your Honor, is that there is no corpus delecti here that gives the court a jurisdiction over my person and property under the Common Law.

Now, this just makes no sense--it's like it was put together by someone with a book of Mad Libs and an old copy of Black's Law Dictionary. Personal jurisdiction was probably satisfied when you committed a criminal act in the state. The idea of a "corpus delecti" [sic] is irrelevant to it. And I'm not sure what the person is even trying to say when they say "there is no corpus delecti here." The "corpus delicti" is the body of evidence proving that a crime has been committed. It's something that is proved in a proceeding, not something that grants, or doesn't grant, jurisdiction. And in this case, if the cop stands up and says that they saw a car driving the wrong way down a one-way street--that's your corpus delicti.

Judge: No, I can assure this court is not moving under the Common Law.

This is correct, of course, although the judge would be more likely to say that "the cause of action against you does not arise under the common law, but under a statute of the state of X." A court of law can hear cases based on either common law or statute, but today, statutes predominate.

I'll skip the admiralty bits, because they're just silly, and, as shown above, the dichotomy the "Defendant" is trying to make is simply false.

Judge: It's Statutory Jurisdiction.

The judge would really be unlikely to say this. Jurisdiction is a specific term with a specific meaning, and while "statutory jurisdiction" is a legal term, it isn't used in this way; I've most commonly heard it used to distinguish the scope of Article III, which delineates the authority Congress may grant to the federal courts under the constitution, with the scope of 28 USC 1331, which contains the authority they actually did grant, which is less extensive (for example, there is Article III jurisdiction, but not statutory jurisdiction, over diversity of citizenship cases which do not meet the jurisdictional amount set by Congress).

It's difficult to know exactly how the judge would answer the question, but that's because the question itself doesn't make much sense.

Defendant: Oh, thank you, your Honor. I'm glad you told me that. But I have never heard of that jurisdiction. So, if I have to defend under that jurisdiction, I would need to have the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Statutory Jurisdiction. Can you tell me where I might find those rules?

Uh...again, you aren't in federal court, you're in state traffic court. The traffic court will most likely have rules of criminal procedure. The federal courts certainly do; the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. If you ask for rules, the judge will point you to those rules. There are no separate rules for "statutory jurisdiction," because (a) there's no such thing, and (b) why should there be? Most criminal cases are prosecuted under criminal statutes. They use the court's rules of criminal procedure. For example, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state: "These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts, the United States courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States." They don't say "all common law cases" or "all cases ecxept those arising under Statutory Jurisdiction." The author clearly thinks this is a clever zinger, but honestly I have no idea what she or he is getting at.

Defendant: Thank you, your Honor, but let me just see if I got this straight. This court has made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a criminal action against me, the accused, under a secret jurisdiction, the rules of which are known only to this court and licensed attorneys, thereby denying me the right to defend in my own person?

Of course not. It's a secret that state criminal courts have the authority to try crimes committed under state criminal law? The state rules of criminal procedure are a secret? Where is any of this coming from?

The judge will probable postpone the case and eventually just let it go.

This will not happen. Will not. The judge will either explain why your questions make no sense, get on with the trial, or find you in contempt. The idea of the judge cowering behind her desk because of this farrago of sea-lawyering is laughable.

Remember, too, they can't try you criminally if you don't understand the charge. That would automatically be a reversible error on appeal. "

Then why doesn't every defense attorney in the country advise their clients to pretend not to understand the charges against them? Answer: because the statement above is too broad. The constitution guarantees that you'll be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against you, meaning you have to know what you're charged with and why. It doesn't mean that feigning ignorance means you can never go to jail.