Circuit split · criminal law
Whether a federal criminal statute's interstate-commerce element requires the defendant's actual use of a facility or instrumentality of interstate commerce to itself be interstate, or whether intrastate use of an interstate facility suffices
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. Perez414 F3D 302
Second Circuit Court of Appeals · July 11, 2005
“There is a circuit split on the question of whether the actual use by the defendant must be an interstate one.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
18 U.S.C. § 1958 — Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of murder-for-hire
“(a) Whoever travels in or causes another (including the intended victim) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including the intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United States as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value, or who conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Discussed · 5th Cir.United States v. Marek238 F.3d 310
“Marek, 238 F.3d 310 , 313 (5th Cir.2001) (en ' banc) (holding that § 1958(a)’s “use of a facility in interstate commerce” is synonymous with § 1958(b)’s “use of a facility of interstate commerce” and therefore that § 1958(a) satisfies the jurisdictional element of the federal murder-for-hire statute, irrespective of whether the particular usage in question was itself interstate or intrastate, so long as the facility is one involved in interstate commerce); United States v.” — United States v. Perez, acknowledging the split
- Joined by · 7th Cir.United States v. Richeson338 F.3d 653
“Richeson, 338 F.3d 653 , 660 (7th Cir.2003) (“We wholly agree with the Fifth Circuit that § 1958’s construction, plain language, context in the realm of commerce clause jurisprudence, and legislative history all lead to the conclusion that ‘it is sufficient [under § 1958] that the defendant used an interstate commerce facility in an intra state fashion.’ ” (quoting Marek, 238 F.3d at 315 )).” — United States v. Perez, acknowledging the split
- On the other side · 6th Cir.United States v. Weathers169 F.3d 336
“Weathers, 169 F.3d 336 , 341-43 (6th Cir.1999) (holding that the communication itself involved in the murder-for-hire conspiracy must affect interstate commerce); United States v.” — United States v. Perez, acknowledging the split
- On the other side · S.D.N.Y.United States v. Paredes950 F.Supp. 584
What the split turns on
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.