United States v. Corey Davis
726 F.3d 357
2d Cir.2013Background
- On May 8, 2009 Corey Davis, an inmate at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, struck another inmate, breaking his jaw; Davis was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6) (assault causing serious bodily injury), which requires the assault to occur within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
- At trial the Government's only proof of the jurisdictional element was testimony from Bureau of Prisons employees that MDC is a "federal prison" "on federal land;" no deeds, maps, or formal acceptance documents were introduced.
- The district court instructed the jury that the Government "may establish" the jurisdictional element "by proving that the alleged assault occurred in a federal prison on federal land," and the jury returned a general guilty verdict.
- On appeal Davis argued the evidence was insufficient to prove the jurisdictional element because federal ownership alone does not establish federal jurisdiction; the Government asked the Second Circuit to take judicial notice that the MDC falls within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- The Second Circuit held the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove the jurisdictional element beyond a reasonable doubt, but (1) took judicial notice on appeal that MDC is within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction based on historical state consent to the 1918 federal purchase and presumption of acceptance pre-1940, and (2) concluded the jury necessarily found the assault occurred at MDC, so affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on jurisdictional element | Government: testimony that MDC is a federal prison on federal land suffices to prove special maritime and territorial jurisdiction | Davis: federal ownership/use alone is insufficient; must prove state consent/cession or federal acceptance establishing jurisdiction | Evidence at trial was insufficient to prove jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Judicial notice of jurisdictional status on appeal | Government: appellate court may take judicial notice of legislative facts like federal jurisdiction over land | Davis: judicial notice on appeal violates jury-trial/Apprendi principles | Court may take judicial notice of legislative fact (jurisdictional status) on appeal without violating Sixth Amendment |
| Whether MDC is within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction | Government: historical purchase with New York legislative consent (1918) and pre-1940 presumption of acceptance establish federal jurisdiction | Davis: New York statutes (Sections 52/55) required additional filing/cession steps not shown, so jurisdiction not established | Court finds MDC within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction (state consent in 1918 and presumed federal acceptance) |
| Whether jury's general verdict encompassed finding assault occurred at MDC | Government: jury instructions and evidence show locus at MDC | Davis: general verdict may obscure which factual theory jury relied on | Court concludes jury necessarily found the assault occurred at MDC given charge and trial record |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245 (establishes that states may condition consent so federal jurisdiction can be concurrent)
- Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (discusses methods of federal acquisition of jurisdiction and congressional power over federal lands)
- Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525 (recognizes cession as a method for federal acquisition of jurisdiction)
- Hernandez-Fundora v. United States, 58 F.3d 802 (2d Cir.) (treats jurisdictional status as a judicially noticeable legislative fact and distinguishes locus-of-crime factual question)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Sixth Amendment sentencing/element principles referenced by appellant)
- United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d 119 (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Cassidy, 571 F.2d 534 (presumption of acceptance of jurisdiction pre-1940 and requirement after 1940)
- United States v. Cook, 922 F.2d 1026 (law/fact allocation for locus and jurisdiction questions)