Sample Memo Formatted

must be “willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce . . . in furtherance of the
commission of the offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 1201. The act of kidnapping requires the
government to prove that the defendant “willfully transported the victim across a border
in interstate or foreign commerce while so kidnapped.” Bancalari, 110 F.3d at 1428.
Sufficient evidence exists to find a kidnapping was ongoing when the victim did not give
voluntarily consent by the time the border was crossed, and when she was held
involuntarily after the border was crossed. Id. at 1429.
In Bancalari, the court held that the unlawful kidnapping of the victim continued
at the time the border was crossed. There, the defendant forced the victim and her
daughter into his truck by gunpoint, drove to the Mexican border, and threatened to use a
gun on the victim if she did not keep quiet. Id. at 1428. The court rejected the
defendant’s argument that the victim consented to crossing the border with him because
she did not want to leave her child. Id. The court found no evidence that the victim had
consented to accompany the defendant across the border, and found strong evidence that
the kidnapping continued even after the border was crossed. Id. at 1429.
Similarly, the evidence in this case is void of evidence of any consent by
Schweitzer to accompany Grant after they had left the restaurant, and specifically, when
Grant drove them across the Montana-Idaho border. Grant stated, “[Schweitzer] said she
didn’t want to go the museum . . . . [But he] kept driving and she kept complaining.”
Also, like the facts in Bancalari, where the victim was held by force after the border was
crossed, the evidence is strong that Schweitzer continued to be held against her will after
she and Dr. Grant crossed into Idaho and then back into Montana. Once Grant stopped
12