Special Events - Voice For The Defense Online

33. S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 306 (19831, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.3182,3485.34. Krantz v. United States, 1999 WL 557524, at '3 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. July 27,19991, appenld~smissedas moot, 224 E3d 125 (2d Cir. 2000).35. S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 304-05 (19831, reprinted in 1984U.S.C.C.AN. 3182, 3484. Certainly, the State of Texas could have prosecutedMs. Marek for attempted capital murder by means of solicitation.See kt. P w CODE Am. 5 7.02(a) (2) (1997) (a person is criminallyresponsible for a crime if he acts with the intent to promote the crime andhe solicits or attempts to aid another to commit the offense); id 519.03(a) (3) (morde~for-hire is capital murder).36. S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 305 (19831, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.3182.3484 (emphasis added).37. S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 306 (19831, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.3182,3485.38.Marek, 2001 WL 10561, at *7.39. Id40. Id at *13 (Jolly, Jones, Smith, Barksdale, and DeMoss, JJ., dissenting).41. S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 306 (19831, %printed in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.3182, 3485; see Marek, 2001 WL 10561, at *13 (Jolly, Jones, Smith,Barksdale, and DeMoss, JJ., dissenting).42.Marek, 2001 10561, at *13 (Jollx Jones, Smith, Barksdale, andDeMoss, JJ., dissenting); see United States v. De Sapio, 299 E Supp. 436,448 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) (reviewing legislative llistory and concluding that $1952 requires interstate telephone calls because "the words 'uses anyfacility in interstate or foreign commerce' were intended to embrace telephonecalls made only in interstate or foreign commerce"); see alsoUnited States v. Stevens, 842 E Supp. 96, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (distinguishingthe use of an interstate pager system from the use of a regulartelephone, which would require the caller and recipient to be in differentstates); I$ United States v. Izydore, 167 E3d 213,219-20 (5th Cir. 1999)(intrastate telephone calls were insuf6cient for fedeinl jurisdiction underthe Wefraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 5 1343, which like 8 1958(a), requiresthat the conununication be in interstate or foreign commerce).43. Chneros, 203 E3d at 339 n.2, 342.44. Id at342.45. Mnrek, 198 E3d at 537-38.46. Afamk, 2001 \VL 10561, at *5.47. 18 U.S.C. $ 1958 ("Wlioever. .. uses the mail or any facility in interstateor foreigi co~mnerce ..."); Cisnems, 203 E3d at 342 (noting that5 1958 "plalnly and unmistakenly" treats the niail differently from allother facilities); Krnntz, 1999 WL 557524, at *3 (because tl~e interstateor foreign conunerce requirement modiGes only the facility and not tliemail, interstate mailing is not required).48. SeedIarek, 2001 WL 10561, at * 11 (Jolly, Jones, Smith, Barksdale,aid DeMoss,JJ., dissenting); see also wpm text accompanyingnote 26.49; See United States 4 Heacock, 31 E3d 249 (5th Cir. 1994); UnitedStates v. Riccardelli, 794 E2d 829 (2d Ck 1986). Hencock andRlcurrdlli interpreted a foroier version of 5 1958, which read,'1Vhoever. . . uses any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, includingthe mail, . . . ." As the Fifth Circuit in Cisneros noted, the reasoningin those cases is limited to the mail, especially dter the current version of5 1958. Cisneros, 203 E3d at 342; see also dlnrek, 2001 WL 10561, at'13 (Jolly, Jones, Smith, Barksdale, and DeMoss,JJ., dissenting).50. Riccnrdelli, 794 E2d at 831.51. U.S. Cosx art. I, 5 8, cl. 7.52. Cisneros, 203 E3d at 341; RiC~rdeIli, 794 E3d at 83031; Krnnfz,1999 WL 557524, at *6.53. See Cisneros, 203 E3d at 342; see nlso Pareda, 950 E Supp. at 588(noting that the "spread of innovative interstate comniunications technology,"combined with a broad interpretation of $1958 "sweeps within tlieprovince of federal jurisdiction crimes previously considered to beentirely local in nature.").54. See United States v. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. 1740, 1754 (2000); UnitedStates v, Lopez, 514 U.S. 549,561 n.3 (1995); NewYo1.k~. United States,505 U.S. 144, 156 (1992).55. Pare&, 950 E Supp. at 585.56. Morrison, 120 S. Ct. at 1751.57. Id. at 1754.58. See Morrison, 120 S. Ct. at 1754; Lopez, 551 US. at 559-68;Pareda, 950 P. Supp. at 588-90 (apply@ Lopez's reasoning to $ 1958).59. See, e.g., United States v. Baker, 82 E2d 273,275 (8th Cir.) (holdingthat intrastate use of an interstate ATM network was sufficient under §19581, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1020 (1996).60. hfanek, 2001 WL 10561, at *5-*6, "9.61. See Cisnems, 203 E3d at 339 n.2 (noting that Congress luistakenlyinterchanged the terms "in" and "of," but that it is not obvious whichterm reflects congressionalintent); Mmk, 198 E3d at 538 (Jolly, J., dissenthg)(noting that the statute's plain nieaning is unclear and tlle legislativehistory suggests a narrow interpretation); Weafhers, 169 E3d at342-43 (noting that congressional intent is "far from clear"); Paredes,950 E Supp. at 587 ("The phrase 'use . . . any facility in interstate or foreigncommerce' is inherently anibiguous. As discussed, there are at leasttwo grammatically cognizable inteqreiations - one stressing 'use' andthe other stressing 'facility."').62. Compare Cisneros, 203 P.3d at 340-43 (holding Uiat 5 1958 requiresinterstate use) with Mnrek, 198 E3d at 534-38 (declining to followCisneros and holding that intrastate use is sufficient).63. See THB RiWWhf How DICIION~RY OF TM ENGLISH JAGUAGE 64 (2d ed.1987) (unabridged) (defining"ambiguous" as "open to or having severalpossible meanings or interpretations"); see nlso Deal v. United States,508 U.S. 129, 142 (1993) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (noting that a statuteis ambiguous unless "its text admits of only one reading").64. Edward J. DeBartolo Carp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Constr. TradesCouncil, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988); Unitedstates exrel. Attorney Generalv. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366,408 (1909).65. See Durn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 112 (1979).66. United States v. Gmnderson, 511 U.S. 39,54 (1994); see also Iadnerv. United States, 358 U.S. 169, 177-78 (1958).67. Cisneros, 203 E3d at 343 (holding that 5 1958's interstate nexusrequirerent is not only jurisdictional, but is also an element of tlieoffense).