Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2d 566
The argument of the defendant overlooks the fact that under 3231, 18 U.S.C.1
federal courts have at the very least concurrent jurisdiction with military courts
over violations of the laws of the United States by military personnel whether
on or off the military reservation. Grafton v. United States (1907) 206 U.S.
333, 348, 27 S.Ct. 749, 51 L.Ed. 1084; Peek v. United States (9th Cir. 1963)
321 F.2d 934, 936, cert. denied376 U.S. 954, 84 S.Ct. 973, 11 L.Ed.2d 973.
Consequently simply because a member of the armed forces may be punished
by military court martial for an offense provides no justification for concluding
that a District Court lacks jurisdiction to punish him for the same offense, if
such offense is violative of a federal law.2
3
The validity of the defendant's prosecution in the District Court for the crime of
drunk driving on a federal installation does not, therefore, turn on whether the
defendant might have been punished under military law but on whether there is
a federal law covering the offense of drunk driving on the military reservation
of Fort Belvoir, Virginia. That there is such a federal law seems plain.
5
"Whoever
within or upon any of the places now existing or hereafter reserved or
acquired as provided in section 7 of this title, is guilty of any act or omission which,
although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if
committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State, Territory, Possession, or
District in which such place is situated, by the laws thereof in force at the time of
such act or omission, shall be guilty of a like offense and subject to a like
punishment."
6
AFFIRMED.