Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. DANISZEWSKI

August 15, 1974

UNITED STATES of America,
v.
Edward Walter DANISZEWSKI, Defendant


Dooling, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: DOOLING

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

DOOLING, District Judge.

 Defendant moves to dismiss Count 8 of the indictment, which reads:

 
"On or about the 1st day of February 1973 at Thailand, the defendant EDWARD WALTER DANISZEWSKI did knowingly and intentionally distribute approximately 8 ounces of heroin hydrochloride, a schedule I narcotic drug controlled substance, at the time intending that such heroin hydrochloride would be unlawfully imported into the United States."

 The indictment is found under the following language of 21 U.S.C. § 959(1) --

 
"It shall be unlawful for any person to . . . distribute a controlled substance in schedule I . . . --
 
(1) intending that such substance will be unlawfully imported into the United States; . . .
 
* * *
 
This section is intended to reach acts of . . . distribution committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
 
* * *

 An additional clause establishes venue for trial and Section 960(a)(3) fixes the penalty.

 The defendant, it is conceded, is a citizen of the United States.

 Defendant argues that, generally, laws proscribing conduct and attaching criminal penalties to the commission of the proscribed acts have no extra-territorial operation (Cf. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 1909, 213 U.S. 347, 29 S. Ct. 511, 53 L. Ed. 826), and that the only clear, and the exceptional, instances of permitted extra-territoriality are those resting on the Protective Principle of jurisdiction, that is for statutes proscribing conduct abroad that threatens the nation's security as a state or the operation of its governmental functions, provided the proscribed conduct is not an exercise of a liberty authorized by the law of the place where it takes place or that it is recognized generally, as criminal conduct (United States v. Pizzarusso, 2d Cir. 1968, 388 F.2d 8, 10-11).

 "Extraterritorial jurisdiction," in the sense of enacting criminal laws that can claim respect under international law, is considered in the 1970 Study Draft of a New Federal Criminal Code prepared by the staff of The National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws (Section 208), and in Volume I of Working Papers, pages 69-76. The Code, § 208, would consider ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.