United States v. Christopher Patrick Campbell
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3051
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Coast Guard boarded an unflagged vessel in international waters near Jamaica; crew jettisoned ~997 kg marijuana; vessel displayed no indicia of nationality; master claimed Haitian registry.
- Coast Guard contacted Haiti; Haiti responded it could "neither confirm nor deny" registry; the Government introduced a certification of the Secretary of State memorializing that response under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(2).
- Campbell (defendant) was indicted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute; he moved to dismiss raising Confrontation Clause, due process, and constitutional power challenges among others.
- District court admitted the State Department certification as conclusive proof of the foreign response, found jurisdiction pretrial (per § 70504(a)), and convicted Campbell after a bench trial based on stipulated facts.
- On appeal, Campbell challenged (1) Confrontation Clause exclusion of the certification, (2) the constitutionality of pretrial judicial determination of jurisdiction and jury waiver issues, (3) sufficiency of the certification to establish jurisdiction, (4) Congress’s Felonies Clause authority, and (5) due process for lack of nexus to the U.S.
Issues
| Issue | Campbell's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting Secretary of State certification to prove extraterritorial jurisdiction violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | Certification is testimonial hearsay; admission without cross-examination violates Crawford | Certification proves only a pretrial jurisdictional matter (diplomatic courtesy), not an element of guilt; Confrontation Clause is a trial right and doesn’t apply here | Court held no Confrontation Clause violation: pretrial jurisdictional use of certification is outside the Clause’s protection because it does not speak to guilt or innocence |
| Whether Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a jury to decide extraterritorial jurisdiction under MDLEA | Jury must decide all facts bearing on conviction; pretrial judicial determination deprives defendant of jury trial rights | Jurisdiction is a preliminary question of law under § 70504(a); Campbell waived jury; precedent allows judge to decide jurisdiction | Court held no violation: Campbell waived jury and precedent permits judicial determination of jurisdiction under the Act |
| Whether the Secretary of State certification provided sufficient proof of jurisdiction | Certification lacked details/corroboration about the Haitian communication and therefore was insufficient | § 70502(d)(2) makes the certification conclusive proof of the foreign response; Campbell also stipulated to the Coast Guard representations | Court held the certification was sufficient and conclusive under the statute; district court properly found jurisdiction |
| Whether MDLEA exceeds Congress’s Felonies Clause power or violates due process for lacking U.S. nexus | Congress lacks authority to criminalize non-capital high-seas conduct without nexus; prosecution violates due process absent U.S. contacts | Historical practice and precedents sustain Congress’s power to proscribe felonies on the high seas (including non-capital offenses); stateless vessels and universal/protective principles justify extraterritorial reach | Court upheld MDLEA as constitutional under the Felonies Clause and rejected the nexus/due process challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rojas, 53 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir.) (addressing Secretary of State certifications under the MDLEA pre-Crawford)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements absent unavailability and prior cross-examination)
- United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002) (jurisdiction under MDLEA is a preliminary question and does not affect culpability)
- Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593 (1927) (court may decide pretrial jurisdictional issues for vessels seized at sea)
- United States v. Estupinan, 453 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2006) (upholding MDLEA under Felonies Clause)
- United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003) (extraterritorial jurisdiction under MDLEA not an element of offense; no nexus requirement for stateless vessels)
- United States v. Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d 1373 (11th Cir. 1982) (stateless vessels subject to U.S. criminal jurisdiction on the high seas)