There was no kid on my block who had the guts to challenge the official red, white and blue signs that stood guard around the perimeter of the lawn in front of the post office. They said, U.S. Property, No Trespassing. It didn’t seem right to me, as that was my government, and maybe the signs were meant for someone else, like the Russians. But I wasn’t going to test it. No way.
Did they not have these signs in Missouri?
Via Harry Styron in the Ozarks comes a Missouri Supreme Court decision that should strike everyone as brutally obvious, but for the fact that it relates back to Dwight Laughlin’s conviction in 1993.
Laughlin broke into the Neosho Post Office and tried to get into the safe. He was tried and convicted for burglary and damaging the safe, for which he was sentenced to 40 years. They take their safes very seriously in Neosho.
The only problem is that he was tried in the Newton County Circuit Court for violating Missouri law. Apparently, it never occurred to anyone in Newton County that Post Offices are federal land.
In a post conviction motion, Laughlin’s lawyer, for the first time, questioned jurisdiction and was firmly rebuffed by the court, which held that “[n]o evidence was adduced showing the offense was not a state offense or that the federal government had pre-empted jurisdiction.” Practice tip: You might want to take a quick look at the United States Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 17, every once in a while. They’ve got some good stuff in there. The lawyer appealed, but not on the jurisdictional issue.
Cut to 2009, when Laughlin, pro se, raised the issue by writ. Curiously, the court found the issue sufficiently meritorious that it appointed Springfield lawyer Ginger Gooch to represent Laughlin. Even more curiously, as set forth in footnote 1 of the decision, where the court expressed its appreciation to Ms. Gooch, it’s “appointment” was for her to represent Laughlin pro bono. Gee, that was awfully kind of the court to provide Laughlin with a lawyer on the lawyer’s dime.
In any event, the Missouri Supreme Court discovered, a mere 15 (their number, not mine) too late that Laughlin was convicted, sentenced and imprisoned by a court that had no jurisdiction. Oops. Sorry. Have a nice day.
Some things are so fundamental, so basic, that nobody gives it much thought. Jurisdiction, unfortunately, is one such thing. After all, what prosecutor would be such an idiot, a fool, to prosecute a case where he has no jurisdiction? And what judge wouldn’t notice that he lack jurisdiction in a case? But the real screw-up here is Laughlin’s lawyer. No matter how big a mistake everybody else in the courtroom made, it’s his job to figure it out, present it properly and prevent a court lacking jurisdiction from locking his client away.
The point is to never forget the basics. Sure, it’s rare that there is a jurisdictional issue, but it does happen and it’s inexcusable to miss it. There are no magic walls on the ground that stop a cop from one jurisdiction seeing into, and going onto, another. Some laws provide for a certain amount of territorial interplay to avoid the unclear line becoming too much of a problem, but where, as here, the jurisdiction was clearly the United States and not the State of Missouri, it’s mind-boggling that no one realized it, that the defense lawyer in the post conviction motion couldn’t effectively make the point and that the court ruled to the contrary.
And as long as we’re talking about remembering the basics, it’s not a terrible idea to read the Constitution every once in a while. You know. Just in case.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I had a jurisdictional issue on a criminal case once. I raised it. It was ignored.
They just do what they want to do, and they have guns.
1. That a lack of jurisdiction might be overlooked is one of the many reasons why defendants have lawyers and a right to be heard.
2. In Texas (I’m a Texas lawyer, not one of Missouri.), someone who broke into a postal safe would be subject to Texas’s authority, even though such a one appears to be also subject to federal jurisdiction. I bet the same would be true in Missouri. Adapting the law school hypothetical I remember to these facts, the citizen accused here could be subject to as many as three jurisdictions- state, federal, and, if the post office were on Indian land, tribal jurisdiction.
3. Lawyers should use checklists. See The Checklist Manifesto by Atul Gawande.
4. The client of an impatient lawyer, especially an impatient criminal defense lawyer, will miss many of the law’s protections. Sometimes to preserve error, trial counsel must object more than once, and an objection might grow on a judge. That is, a judge might be more open to an objection after proceedings have gone on for a while and the court sees that juridical boldness is a web of potential reversal, which could be most embarrassing to the trial bench. Many times in state proceedings these days a trial lawyer must plod through every state remedy, even though elected state judges find it impossible to rule substantively for a defendant, so that one gains the right to a hearing before a judge serving for life on good behavior. This can take years– that is, exhaustion of state remedies can be exhausting– but the federal courts may be where relief may most likely be.