U.S. CONVICTION OF FOREIGN CREW MEMBER WHO SEXUALLY ASSUALTED A 12 YEAR OLD PASSENGER ABOARD A CRUISE SHIP IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS IS AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EMMANUEL ORMAND NEIL, aka Emmanuel Ormand Neil, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-50459
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
312 F.3d 419; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23809; 2002 Cal. DailyOp. Service 11275; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 13110
November 20, 2002, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. D.C. No. CR-00-01292-SVW-1. Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant conditionally pleaded guilty to sexual contact with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2244(a)(3), but asserted that the United States lacked jurisdiction since the crime occurred in foreign territorial waters. Appellant sought review of the judgment of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
OVERVIEW: Appellant fondled a minor, a United States citizen, while appellant was an employee on a cruise ship which departed from a United States port and visited foreign ports before returning to the United States. Appellant contended that extraterritorial jurisdiction did not apply since all of his criminal conduct occurred in foreign territorial waters. The appellate court held, however, that the United States had territorial jurisdiction over appellant's offenses because § 2244(a)(3) expressly applied outside the United States and exercising jurisdiction did not offend any principle of international law. Both § 2244(a)(3) and the cross-referenced statute relating to minors, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2243(a), specifically invoked the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Further, the territorial principal of international law permitted United States jurisdiction since appellant's extraterritorial conduct had a detrimental effect on the victim in the United States. Also, under the passive personality principle, the United States could assert jurisdiction over appellant's offenses which were committed against a United States citizen.
OUTCOME: The judgment of conviction was affirmed.
