943 F.3d 98
2d Cir.2019Background
- Stefan Van Der End, a Dutch national, was one of three crew aboard the yacht Sunshine, stopped by the U.S. Coast Guard on May 23, 2016, en route with over 1,000 kg of cocaine.
- The Sunshine’s master produced registration information claiming St. Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG) registry; Coast Guard boarded and recovered >600 kg; later evidence indicated additional cocaine onboard.
- SVG officials informed U.S. authorities that the vessel’s registration had expired and that SVG did not consider the vessel under its jurisdiction; the State Department certified SVG’s response.
- Van Der End was indicted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) for drug trafficking and conspiracy; he moved to dismiss raising statelessness, Confrontation Clause, jury-trial, and Due Process (nexus) claims.
- After the district court ruled for the government and admitted the SVG certification, Van Der End pled guilty without preserving appellate rights and was sentenced to 25 years; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Sunshine was a vessel without nationality | U.S.: master’s claim + SVG denial + State Dept. certification prove statelessness under MDLEA | Van Der End: government failed to meet MDLEA statelessness procedures; certification testimonial and Confrontation Clause problem | Court: Evidence satisfied MDLEA statelessness rules; State Dept. certification admissible; Confrontation Clause claim waived by guilty plea |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to State Department certification | U.S.: certification is statutory proof of foreign response under MDLEA and admissible | Van Der End: certification is testimonial hearsay; lack of confrontation violates Sixth Amendment | Court: Confrontation claim waived by guilty plea; in any event statute provides conclusive certification and record supported statelessness |
| Whether jury must decide vessel-jurisdiction question | U.S.: §70504(a) makes jurisdiction a judge’s preliminary question | Van Der End: Sixth Amendment requires jury determination of jurisdictional fact | Court: Guilty plea waived right to jury; noted prior concerns but no preserved challenge—judge properly made preliminary determination |
| Due Process (nexus) requirement for stateless-vessel MDLEA prosecutions | U.S.: no separate U.S. nexus required for stateless-vessel prosecutions; MDLEA applies extraterritorially | Van Der End: prosecution unconstitutional absent sufficient nexus to U.S. | Court: Due Process does not require a U.S. nexus for crimes on stateless vessels; prosecutions are not arbitrary or unfair because stateless vessels lack sovereign protection and may be prosecuted by any nation |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (guilty plea waives several constitutional rights including confrontation)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (guilty plea waives right to jury trial)
- Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (guilty plea does not categorically bar direct challenges to statutory constitutionality)
- United States v. Prado, 933 F.3d 121 (2d Cir.) (MDLEA jurisdictional proof and caution about submitting jurisdiction to juries)
- United States v. Yousef, 750 F.3d 254 (2d Cir.) (guilty plea does not waive constitutional challenge that statute lacks requisite nexus for extraterritorial application)
- United States v. Epskamp, 832 F.3d 154 (2d Cir.) (adopting a sufficient-nexus test for extraterritorial criminal prosecutions)
- United States v. Caicedo, 47 F.3d 370 (9th Cir. 1995) (stateless vessels are subject to all nations’ jurisdiction; defendants on stateless vessels lack protection against multiple jurisdictions)
- United States v. Pinto-Mejia, 720 F.2d 248 (2d Cir.) (MDLEA predecessor did not require a nexus)