The Yellowstone zone of death is a roughly 50-square-mile strip of the national park that lies inside Idaho but falls under the federal District of Wyoming. Because no one lives in that overlap, a defendant charged with a serious crime there could, in theory, demand a jury the government has no way to seat. The theory has never been fully tested, prosecutors have several ways around it, and Congress has not closed the gap.
The Two Constitutional Rules That Collide
Two provisions decide where a federal criminal trial happens and who sits on the jury. Article III, Section 2 says “the trial of all crimes…shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed.”1Cornell Law Institute. US Constitution Article III A federal crime in Idaho is tried in Idaho.
The Sixth Amendment adds the jury rule. It guarantees “an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”2Congress.gov. US Constitution – Sixth Amendment The word “and” does the work. Jurors must come from the correct state and the correct federal judicial district at the same time. Scholars call this the vicinage requirement. In most of the country it’s a non-issue, because federal districts don’t cross state lines.
Why Yellowstone Is the Exception
Yellowstone sits across three states: about 96 percent in Wyoming, roughly 260 square miles in Montana, and about 50 square miles in Idaho. All of it answers to one federal court. Under 28 U.S.C. § 131, the District of Wyoming is defined as “Wyoming and those portions of Yellowstone National Park situated in Montana and Idaho.”3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 131 – Wyoming That makes the District of Wyoming the only federal district that reaches into other states.
State courts have no role either. Idaho and Montana ceded exclusive jurisdiction over their slivers of the park to the federal government when they entered the Union, and 16 U.S.C. § 24 keeps the park under “the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.”4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 16 USC 24 – Jurisdiction Over Park; Fugitives From Justice Idaho prosecutors cannot charge a crime committed in the Idaho strip under state law.
The Jury Paradox
Stack the rules. A serious crime in the Idaho portion must be tried in Idaho (Article III) by a jury drawn from both Idaho and the District of Wyoming (Sixth Amendment). The only humans who satisfy both filters live in the 50-square-mile overlap, and according to the 2020 Census that number is zero. No houses, no cabins, no residents. Backcountry inhabited by grizzlies and elk.
An empty jury pool means no constitutionally valid jury. A defendant who refuses to waive the vicinage right would put the government in a corner. There is no trial without a jury, and no conviction for a serious offense without a trial.
What the Loophole Does Not Cover
The theory only bites on serious crimes. Under Baldwin v. New York, offenses carrying a maximum sentence of six months or less are presumptively “petty” and fall outside the Sixth Amendment’s jury guarantee.5Legal Information Institute. Petty Offense Doctrine and Maximum Sentences Over Six Months A federal magistrate can hear petty offenses without a jury, so poaching, trespassing, or minor vandalism in the Idaho strip can still be prosecuted through a bench trial. The paradox only kicks in when the potential sentence runs above six months.
Montana’s portion is different too. The Montana strip is roughly five times larger than Idaho’s and has a small permanent population: park employees and concession workers living in the park’s Montana boundaries. A jury drawn from the Montana-District of Wyoming overlap would be awkward, not impossible. Professor Brian Kalt, who identified the loophole, has acknowledged the Montana portion doesn’t raise the same zero-population problem.
How Prosecutors Could Still Win a Case
A real attempt to exploit the gap would run into several obstacles that Kalt himself has mapped out.
- Almost any crime in the Idaho strip involves planning or travel outside it. If the defendant drove through Wyoming to get there, prosecutors can charge conspiracy or other offenses tied to Wyoming conduct, where normal jury rules apply.
- Lesser included offenses may fall under the six-month petty threshold, letting the government stack charges that don’t require a jury at all.
- The vicinage right belongs to the defendant. A defendant who doesn’t raise it, or agrees to be tried in Cheyenne, gets a normal trial. The loophole requires an informed defendant who actively refuses to consent.
- Even if criminal prosecution fails, a victim’s family can pursue civil wrongful death or injury claims under different procedural rules.
- Courts have little appetite for letting someone walk on a technicality. A judge might seat jurors from the broader Idaho population and force the defendant to appeal, pushing the issue upward under unsympathetic facts.
The One Time It Came Up
In 2005, Michael Belderrain illegally shot an elk while standing in Yellowstone’s Montana portion. Indicted in the District of Wyoming, he argued, citing Kalt, that he had a Sixth Amendment right to a Montana jury. The court dismissed the argument without engaging the constitutional question deeply, and Belderrain accepted a plea. No appellate court has ruled on whether the vicinage theory actually holds. The question remains open.
Who Found It, and Why It’s Still There
The theory comes from Professor Brian Kalt of Michigan State University College of Law, who published “The Perfect Crime” in the Georgetown Law Journal in 2005.6SSRN. The Perfect Crime Kalt didn’t publish hoping someone would test it. He sent his findings to Congress and the Department of Justice before publication, urging a fix.
The fix is simple: move the Idaho portion to the District of Idaho and the Montana portion to the District of Montana. A jury for a crime in the Idaho strip would then be drawn from Idaho residents in the District of Idaho, satisfying both constitutional rules. In 2022, Idaho state representative Colin Nash introduced House Joint Memorial 3 asking Congress to do exactly that. A state memorial is a request, not legislation, and it carries no binding force on Congress. No federal bill to redraw the boundary has passed. The statute that created the anomaly, 28 U.S.C. § 131, remains unchanged.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 USC 131 – Wyoming
Officials have treated the scenario as too unlikely to justify splitting the park’s law enforcement across three federal districts. Rangers currently coordinate with a single U.S. Attorney’s office in Wyoming, and adding two more jurisdictions would complicate ordinary enforcement over a problem that, so far, has stayed theoretical.