FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 2, 2003 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit Judg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * designation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 02- 12924

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 01 -000 28 -C R -01-2 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C A R L M . D R U R Y , J R ., M .D ., D o c to r , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 2, 2003) B efo re B A R K E T T , M A R C U S an d A L A R C Ó N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

D r . C a r l M . D ru ry , J r . ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f o ru s in g a f

a c ility in in te r s ta te com m er ce t o eff

ec ta m urder- for- hi re sc hem e, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 8(a) , a nd f orpos s e s s i ng a f

i r e a r m i n c onne c t i on w i th a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) . D rury c ont e nds tha tthe gove rnm e ntf a i l e d t o a dduc e s uf

f i c i e nt e vi de nc e a ttr i a l t o e s t a bl i s h the j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e ntof § 1958( a ) . I n a ddi t i on, D rury a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d r e ve r s i bl e e rr orby : 1) i ns truc t i ng the ju ry th a t th e u s e o f

a p a y o rc e llu la rp h o n e c o n s titu te s a p e rs e u s e o f a f a c ility in i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , a s tha tphr a s e i s us e d i n § 1958( a ) ; 2) pr ohi bi t i ng hi m f r om in tr o d u c in g e v id e n c e o f h is c h a r a c te rf

o rtru th f u ln e s s ; 3 ) r e f

u s in g to a d m it t es t i m on y f

rom hi s s on re gardi ng a pri or consi st entst at em entthatD rury m ade a ft er h is a rr e s t; a n d 4 ) d e n y in g h is r e q u e s te d ju ry in s tru c tio n s . W e f i nd tha tthe e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l s uf f i c i e nt l y e s t a bl i s he d the re qu i si t e j uri sdi ct i on al nexu s und er§ 1 95 8(a) and t hatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed no re vers i bl e e rr or. T here fore , w e AF F I RM D ru ry ’s c o n v ic tio n s . I . B AC KG RO UN D T he unus ua l s e que nc e of e ve nt s tha tc ul m i na t e d i n D rur y ’ s c onvi c t i ons began w i th B ureau o f A l coho l , T ob ac co, and F i re arm s ( “ A T F ”) A gentS t even W h a tle y ’s s e p a r a tio n f

r o m h is w if

e . D ru ry , a lo n g tim e f

r ie n d a n d f

a m ily ph ys i ci an, offe re d t o l etW hat l ey re si de athi s hom e. W hat l ey ac ce pt ed thi s off er a n d s ta y e d w ith D ru ry f o rth e n e x t s e v e r a l m o n th s .3

D u r in g th e irtim e to g e th e r , D ru ry c o m p la in e d b itte r ly a b o u t h is w if e M a ry . D ru ry to ld W h a tle y th a t h e n e e d e d “s o m e r e lie f ” f r o m h is w if

e a n d jo k e d th a t “it h a d to lo o k lik e a n a c c id e n t.” E v e n tu a lly , D ru ry a s k e d W h a tle y if h e m ig h t b e a b le to f in d s o m e o n e to k ill h is w if e . D ru ry a ls o in q u ir e d w h e th e rW h a tle y c o u ld m o d if y a p is to l to m a k e it f

u lly a u to m a tic a n d “q u ie te r .” W hat l ey re po rt ed thi s c on vers at i on t o h i s s up ervi sor a tthe F eder al L aw En f o r c e me n tTr a i n i n g Ce n t e r( “ FL ET C” ) , wh o a rr a n g e d a me e t i n g wi th ATF A ge nt s J ohn L i m ba c h a nd L oui s V a l oz e . T he a ge nt s pr ovi de d W ha t l e y w i th A ge nt V a l oz e ’ s unde r c ove rc e l l ul a rphone num be ra nd i ns truc t e d hi m t o gi ve D rury the n u m b e ru p o n r e q u e s t. V a lo z e ’s c e llu la rp h o n e n u m b e rw a s r e g is te r e d in a S o u th G e o r g ia a r e a c o d e . D ru ry c a lle d A g e n t V a lo z e ’s c e llu la rp h o n e f r o m a p a y p h o n e , in tr o d u c e d h im s e lf

a s W h a tle y ’s f

r ie n d , a n d a rr a n g e d to m e e t V a lo z e th e n e x t d a y . T hi s t e l e phone c a l l w a s r e c or de d. D ur i ng the c a l l , a nd a l l s ubs e que ntphone conv er sa t i on s betw ee n A gentV al oze a nd D rury , bo th m en w er e physi ca l l y l ocat ed in G e o r g ia . A s pl a nne d, D rury m e tw i th V a l oz e the ne xtda y t o di s c us s the m ur de rof D rury ’ s w i fe . A tthe m ee t i ng , V al oze t ol d D rury thathe re qu i re d a gu n and a f ee of $2 , 00 0. D rury prov i ded V al oze w i th d et ai l ed i nform at i on re gardi ng hi s w i fe , i ncl ud i ng her pl ac e of e m pl oym ent , the type of c arshe drove, her w ork schedul e, a n d h e rh a b i t s . He s tr e s s e d t o Va l o z e th a t“ [ i ] tj u s tn e e d s t o b e a n a c c i d e n t . ” At4

the c onc l us i on of

the m e e t i ng, D rur y i nf

or m e d V a l oz e tha the w oul d c a l l hi m i n a c o u p le o f d a y s . D ru ry d id s o a n d p r o v id e d V a lo z e w ith th e ta g n u m b e ro f h is w if e ’s c a r . H e a ls o n e g o tia te d V a lo z e ’s p r ic e f o rth e m u r d e rd o w n to $ 2 5 0 . T he m e n m e ta ga i n s e ve r a l da y s l a t e r , a nd D rury pr ovi de d V a l oz e both the $2 50 and a . 38 ca l i ber T aurus handg un . D rury t ol d V al oze thati f hi s w i fe agre ed to s ig n th e ird iv o r c e p ap e r s , th e m o n e y w o u ld o n ly b e “to f o llo w h e r ” a n d s e e if s he w a s s e e i ng a nothe rm a n. B uti f M a ry r e f

us e d t o s i gn the pape r s , “ w e ’ l l go a h e a d .” T h e m e n a g r e e d th a t D ru ry w o u ld c a ll V a lo z e a t th e e n d o f th e w e e k w ith th is in f o r m a tio n . W he n D rury c a l l e d A ge ntV a l oz e , he i ndi c a t e d tha tM a ry ha d nots i gne d the papers , thathe shou l d p roce ed w i th the pl an, and t hathi s w i fe w as st ay i ng ather s i s t e r ’ s hom e , s o he c oul d “ c a t c h he ron the w a y ba c k. [ I ] t ’ l l be a good, good tim e .” V a lo z e in f

o r m e d D ru ry th a t h e w o u ld “g e t it d o n e .” F o llo w in g th is c o n v e r s a tio n , A T F a g e n ts a rr e s te d D ru ry . A ttr i a l , the gove rnm e nti ntr oduc e d e xpe r tt e s t i m ony f r om r e pr e s e nt a t i ve s of B el l S ou th T el ec om m un i ca t i on s, the com pany thatse rvi ce d the pay t el epho nes D rury used t o con t ac tV al oze, and V oi ce S tre am W i re l es s, the com pany that s e r v ic e d V a lo z e ’s c e llu la rp h o n e . T h e B e llS o u th r e p r e s e n ta tiv e te s tif ie d th a t a ll c a lls f r o m th e p h o n e s th a t D ru ry u s e d a r e r o u te d to th e B ru n s w ic k , G e o r g ia s w itc h in g c e n te rw h e r e th e y a r e s w itc h e d to th e r e q u e s te d d e s tin a tio n , b e it lo c a l,Wh at l e y

t e s t i f i e d attri alan d

d e n i e d e v e r di s c u s s i n go r

e n g ag i n gi nro l e - p l ay

w i thD r ur y . In 1 turn, Drur y called two character

witnesses, Ted Turner

and Joseph Bridg ers, who te stified that Whatley had a reputatio n f

or be inguntr

uth ful. 5 i nt e r s t a t e , ori nt e rna t i ona l . T he s i gna l f r om a pur e l y l oc a l c a l l w oul d notl e a ve G e or gi a , buta c a l l t o a c e l l ul a rphone m i ght . T he V oi c e S tr e a m r e pr e s e nt a t i ve t e s t i f i e d tha tD rury ’ s c a l l s t o V a l oz e ’ s c e l l ul a rphone w e r e a l l r out e d outof G e o r g ia to th e c o m p a n y ’s J a c k s o n v ille , F lo r id a s w itc h in g c e n te r . D ru ry b a s e d h i s d e f

e n s e o n th e th e o ry th a tth e e n t i r e mu r d e r - f o r - h i r e s c h e me w as , i n rea l i ty, j ustan A T F rol e- pl ay i ng exer ci se . H e t es t i fi ed attri al thathe never s poke w i th W ha t l e y a boutki l l i ng hi s w i f e . R a the r , the i rc onve r s a t i ons c e nt e r e d on the po ss i bi l i ty thatM ary w as havi ng an af fa i r. A cc ordi ng t o D rury , he i nform ed W ha t l e y tha the w a nt e d t o hi r e a pr i va t e i nve s t i ga t ort o s ur ve i l M a ry , butc oul d not a f f or d t o do s o. W ha t l e y ha d the n a dvi s e d D rur y a boutar ol e - pl a y i ng tr a i ni ng pr ogr a m a tthe A T F . W ha t l e y t ol d D rur y tha ti f he e nt e r e d the pr ogr a m a nd 1 pret ended t o see k a m urder- for- hi re , A T F agent s w ou l d p l ac e M ary und er survei l l ance as partof the exerc i se . D rury t es t i fi ed thatal l conv er sa t i on s betw ee n h im s e lf a n d A g e n t V a lo z e w e r e a p r o d u c t o f h is b e lie f

th a t th e y w e r e e n g a g e d in r ol e - pl a y . H e de ni e d e ve ra c tua l l y i nt e ndi ng t o ha ve M a ry ki l l e d a nd s t a t e d tha the tho ug htthe $2 50 fe e w as si m pl y r ei m bu rs em entfor the survei l l ance . A s e vi dence of hi s be l i e f

tha tthe s c he m e w a s a r ol e - pl a y i ng e xe r c i s e , D rury not e d tha tthe pu rport ed “ tri gg er ” f

or go i ng ahea d w i th the pl an – M ary s i gn i ng the di vo rc e6

p ap er s – w as , i n fa ct, a fa lsificatio n ; th e c o u p le h ad n o p lan s to d iv o rc e. M ar y’s te s tim o n y a t tr ia l c o rr o b o r a te d th e f a c t th a t th e tw o h a d n e v e rd is c u s s e d d iv o r c e . D rur y a l s o a tt e m pt e d t o i ntr oduc e t e s t i m ony f r om hi s s on, D on, r e c ount i ng a conv er sa t i on they had the ni gh tD rury w as arre st ed. D on had spo ken t o D rury im m ed iately fo ll o w in g th e a rr es t, w h il e D ru ry w as stil l i n th e a rr es ti n g o ff icer ’s v e h ic le , a n d s o u g h t to te s tif y th a t D ru ry h a d to ld h im o f th e r o le - p la y in g e x e r c is e . T h e g o v ern m en to b

j ect ed , arg u i n g th atth e t est i m o n y w as n o tad m i ssi b l e b ecau se D rury had a m ot i ve t o fabri ca t e the st ory a ft erhi s a rr es tsi nce he had no ti nform ed anyone of the rol e- pl ay i ng exer ci se pri or t o h i s a rr es t . T he di stri ctcourtrul ed D on ’ s t es t i m on y i nadm i ss i bl e. D rur y a ddi t i ona l l y s oughtt o i ntr oduc e t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng hi s c ha r a c t e rf or truthf ul ne s s unde rR ul e 608 of the F e de r a l R ul e s of

E vi de nc e . T he gove rnm e nt re sp o n d ed th at R u le 6 0 8 d id n o t ap p ly b ec au se ith ad n ev erq u es ti o n ed D ru ry ’s c ha r a c t e r , onl y hi s c r e di bi l i ty . T he di s tr i c tc our ta gr e e d a nd e xc l ude d the te s tim o n y . P r i ort o tr i a l , D rury ha d s ubm i tt e d tw o r e que s t e d j ury c ha r ge s r e ga r di ng im p r o p e rg o v e rn m e n t in v e s tig a tio n s a n d w itn e s s c r e d ib ility a s f o llo w s : I i nstructyou thatyou m ay consi der s uch evi dence, i ncl ud i ng i m prop er i nve s t i ga t i ve t e c hni que s , i n e va l ua t i ng the c r e di bi l i ty of the gove rnm e nt w i tness es . In ot her w ords, an i nv es t i gat i on thati s tho roug h and cond uct ed in g o o d f a ith m a y le a d to m o r e c r e d ib le e v id e n c e th a n a n in v e s tig a tio n th a t is in c o m p le te , n e g lig e n t, o rc o n d u c te d in b a d f a ith . I n d e c id in g th e c r e d ib ility7

of l a w e nf or c e m e ntw i tne s s e s , y ou m a y c ons i de rw he the rthe i nve s t i ga t i on w as cond uct ed ac cordi ng t o p roper prot ocol and w as com pl et e. I f u r th e rin s tru c t y o u th a t if th e g o v e rn m e n t im p r o p e r ly , o rin a d e q u a te ly i nve s t i ga t e d one a s pe c tof thi s c a s e , y ou m a y i nf

e rtha tthe gove rnm e nt in a d e q u a te ly , o rim p r o p e r ly in v e s tig a te d o th e ra s p e c ts o f th e c a s e , a s w e ll. B a s e d on thi s i nf

e r e nc e a l one , y ou m a y di s be l i e ve c e r t a i n gove rnm e nt w i tn esses. D rury ’ s s e c ond pr opos e d j ury i ns truc t i on w a s 11th C i r c ui tP a tt e rn J ury I ns truc t i on (C ri m i nal C as es ), B as i c I nstruct i on 6. 7 at30 (W es t19 97 ): T here m ay al so be evi dence t endi ng t o sho w thata w i tness has abad r e put a t i on f

ortruthf ul ne s s i n the c om m uni ty w he r e the w i tne s s r e s i de s , or ha s r e c e nt l y r e s i de d; ortha tothe r s ha ve a n unf a vor a bl e opi ni on of

the truthf ul ne s s of the w i tne s s . Y ou m a y c ons i de rthos e m a tt e r s a l s o i n de c i di ng w h eth er t o b el i ev e o r d i sb el i ev e su ch w i tn ess. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otgi ve ei ther i nstruct i on . Inst ea d, as partof i t s pre l i m i nary in s tru c tio n s p r io rto o p e n in g s ta te m e n ts , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in s tru c te d th e ju ry th a t: [ Y ] ou a r e the onl y pe opl e w ho c a n de t e r m i ne the c r e di bi l i ty orthe be l i e va bi l i ty of

the w i tne s s e s . Y ou a r e the s ol e j udge s of the c r e di bi l i ty of the w i tne s s e s a nd the w e i ghtt o be a c c or de d t o the t e s t i m ony a nd the e vi de nc e . . . . W ha ty ou a r e goi ng t o s e e i s tha ti n de t e r m i ni ng the c r e d ib ility o f

th e w itn e s s e s y o u w ill u s e th e s a m e c r ite r ia th a t y o u u s e in y ourda i l y l i f

e . T he s a m e thi ngs tha ty ou us e t o de t e r m i ne the c r e di bi l i ty or the bel i evabi l i ty of the w i tness es , ar e e xact l y the sa m e s ort s of thi ng s that y ou us e i n y ourda i l y l i ve s w he n y ou a r e try i ng t o de c i de w he the rornoty ou ca n b el i eve s om ebod y abo uta very i m po rt antm att er . A tthe c l os e of

the tr i a l , the j udge pr ovi de d the f ol l ow i ng i ns truc t i on: In deci di ng w hether y ou bel i eve or do n otbel i eve a ny w i tness , I s ug gestthat y ou a s k y our s e l f

a f e w que s t i ons : di d the w i tne s s i m pr e s s y ou a s one w ho w a s te llin g th e tru th ? D id th e w itn e s s h a v e a n y p a r tic u la rr e a s o n n o t to te ll the truth? D i d the w i tne s s ha ve a pe r s ona l i nt e r e s ti n the out c om e of the8

c a s e ? D i d the w i tne s s s e e m t o ha ve a good m e m ory ? D i d the w i tne s s ha ve the oppor tuni ty a nd abi l i ty t o obs e r ve a c c ur a t e l y the thi ngs he ors he te s tif ie d a b o u t? D id th e w itn e s s ap p e a rto u n d e r s ta n d th e q u e s tio n s c le a r ly and answ erthem di re ct l y? D i d the w i tness ’ s t es t i m on y di ff erfr om other t e s t i mo n y o ro th e re v i d e n c e ? T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o i nf or m e d the j ur y tha t , a s a m a tt e rof l a w , “ pa y phone s a nd ce l l ul arph on es ar e ‘ fa ci l i t i es i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce ’ un der f eder al l aw . ” D rury obj ec t ed t o thi s c harge and t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o g i ve hi s r equest ed in s tru c tio n s . T he j ury f

ound D rury gui l ty of

both the m ur de r - f

or - hi r e s c he m e a nd the fi rearm s v i o l at i o n . T h e d i stri ctco u rtsu b seq u en t l y sen t en ced D ru ry t o 2 0 4 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. D ru ry f

ile d a tim e ly ap p e a l w ith th is C o u r t. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . The N e c e s s a r y I nt e r s t a t e C o m m e r c e N e x us D rury fi rs tar gu es thatthe go vernm entfa i l ed t o add uce s uffi ci entevi dence at tri al t o est ab l i sh th e j u ri sd i ct i o n al el em en to f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 8 (a). S p eci fi cal l y, D ru ry c o n te n d s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t s h o w th a t h e u s e d a f a c ility in i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e w i th the i nt e ntt o c om m i ta m ur de r - f or - hi r e , a s r e qui r e d by the statu te. A lth o u g h D ru ry co n ce d es th at ea ch o f th e c alls th at h e m ad e to V alo ze ’s c e l l ul a rphone w e r e r out e d thr ough V oi c e S tr e a m ’ s J a c ks onvi l l e , F l or i da s w i t c hi ng cen t er, h e n o n eth el ess co n t en d s th atsu ch co n t act s are i n su ffi ci en tt o sat i sfy § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) ’s in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e r e q u ir e m e n t.We note that we a re not c alled upon to dec ide the constitutionality of this Section, and thus 2 United States v. L opez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), which discusse s the para meters of Congress’s power to leg islate pursuant to the Commerc e Clause, ha s no releva nce here. 9 T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha ti tw a s onl y r e qui r e d t o pr ove tha tD rur y us e d a m ea ns of com m un i ca t i on capabl e of tra vel i ng i nt er st at e t o i m po se l i abi l i ty und er the st atut e. A l t ernat i vel y, the go vernm entar gu es thateven i f the st atut e r equi re s thata “ fa ci l i ty” ac tual l y be use d i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce , D rury ’ s c al l , w hi ch w as r out e d thr ough a nothe rs t a t e , s a t i s f i e s tha tr e qui r e m e nt . T hus , w e a r e c a l l e d upon to in te rp r e t a n d ap p ly 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 , w h ic h p r o v id e s a s f o llo w s : 2 U se of i nt er st at e c om m er ce fa ci l i t i es i n the com m i ss i on of m urder- for- hi re . (a ) W h oever tr a v e ls in o rc a u s e s a n o th e r( in c lu d in g th e in te n d e d v ic tim ) to tra vel i n i nt er st at e or f

orei gn com m er ce , or u ses orc a us e s a nothe r( i nc l udi ng the i nt ended v i ct i m ) t o u se the m ai l or an y faci l i ty i n i n te rs tate orf or e i gn com m er ce , wi th i n t e n tth a ta m u r d e rb e c o m m i tt e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f th e l a ws of any S t at e or the U ni t ed S t at es as consi dera t i on for the re ce i ptof, or as consi dera t i on for aprom i se or agre em entt o p ay , anythi ng of pecuni ary val ue, or w ho conspi re s t o d o so, shal l be fi ned u nd erthi s t i t l e or i m pri soned f ornotm or e tha n t e n y e a r s , orboth; a nd i f pe r s ona l i nj ury r e s ul t s , s ha l l be f i ne d unde rthi s t i t l e ori m pr i s one d f ornotm or e tha n tw e nty y e a r s , orboth; a n d if d e a th r e s u lts , s h a ll b e p u n is h e d b y d e a th o rlif e im p r is o n m e n t, o rs h a ll be f i ne d notm or e tha n $250, 000, orboth. (b) A s u s e d i n t h i s s e c t i on a nd s e c t i on 1959– (1) “ anythi ng of pecuni ary val ue” m ea ns anythi ng of val ue i n the form of m one y , a ne got i a bl e i ns trum e nt , a c om m e r c i a l i nt e r e s t , ora ny thi ng el se the pri m ary s i gn i fi ca nce of w hi ch i s e cono m i c a dv ant age; (2) “f ac i l i t y of i n t e r s t at e c om m e r c e ” i n c l u d e s m e an s of t r an s p or t at i on an d c om m u n i c at i on ; a nd ( 3) “ S t a t e ” i nc l ude s a S t a t e of the U ni t e d S t a t e s , the D i s tr i c tof C ol um bi a , a nd a ny c om m onw e a l th, t e rr i t or y , orpos s e s s i on of the U n i t ed S t at es.Section 1952 of the Travel Ac t, entitled “Interstate a nd fore ign travel or

transportation in aid of 3 rac ke te e ringe nterp ri se s, ”re a d a s f oll ow s: (a) Wh o ev er

trav el s i ni nt er s t at e o r f

o re i gnco mm er ce o r u s es any fa ci l i ty o r f o re i gn commerc e, includingthe mail, with intent to-- (1) distribute the procee ds of any unlawful activity ; or (2) c ommit any

crime of violence to f

urther a ny unlawful activity

. . . (b ) A s u se d in

thi s se c tio n “un lawf

ul ac tiv ity”me ans (1) a ny business enterprise involving g ambling, liquor on which the F ederal excise taxhas not been paid, narcotics, or prostitut ion offense s in violation of the laws of the State in whic h they arecommitted or of the United States, or (2) e x tortion or bribery

in violation of the laws of the State in whic h committed or of theUnite d St ate s. 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (1961). Th eCom pre hens iveCrimeControl A c t of 19 84 a dd e d 1 8 U .S. C. § 19 52 A to th eTrave l A c t: 4 (a) Wh oever t

ra ve ls in o r c a

us e s a no ther ( inc ludingtheint e nd e d v ic tim) to trave l in 10 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 ( e m p h a s e s s u p p lie d ) . T he s t a tut e f

i nds i t s or i gi ns i n the I nt e r s t a t e T r a ve l i n A i d of R a c ke t e e r i ng S ta tu te ( “th e T r a v e l A c t” ) . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 2 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , a m e n d e d b y 1 8 U .S .C . § 1952A ( 1984) . T he T r a ve l A c tf e de r a l i z e d the pr os e c ut i on of or ga ni z e d c r i m e a nd r a c ke t e e r i ng of

f e ns e s tha tc r os s s t a t e bor de r s . I tor i gi na l l y c ove r e d “ unl a w f ul a c t i vi ty ” a s s oc i a t e d w i th or ga ni z e d c r i m e ( e . g. , ga m bl i ng, pr os t i tut i on, l i quor , a nd na r c ot i c s ) , butdi d noti nc l ude m ur de r - f or - hi r e a s a di s t i nc tof

f e ns e . S e e R e w i s v. 3 U n ite d S ta te s , 4 0 1 U .S . 8 0 8 , 8 1 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( “L e g is la tiv e h is to ry o f th e [ T r a v e l] A c t is l i m i t e d, butdoe s r e ve a l tha t§ 1952 w a s a i m e d pr i m a r i l y a tor ga ni z e d c r i m e a nd, m or e s pe c i f

i c a l l y , a tpe r s ons w ho r e s i de i n one S t a t e w hi l e ope r a t i ng orm a na gi ng i l l egal ac t i vi t i es l ocat ed i n ano ther. ”) . In 19 84 , C on gres s pas se d the C om prehensi ve C ri m e C on trol A ct , w hi ch a m e n d e d th e T r a v e l A c t to in c lu d e th e c r im e o f m u r d e r - f

o r - h ir e . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . §

4int e rs tateor fo re ign c omm e rc e , o r u se s o r c a us e s a no ther ( inc ludingtheint e nd e d v ic tim) to use the mail or any

fac ility in interstate or f

oreign commerc e, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of a ny State or the United States a s consideration for the rece ipt of, or as c onsideration for a promise or

agreement to pay, any

thing of pecunia ry value, shall be fined . . . . (b) As us ed i n thi s s ect io n an d s ect io n 1 95 2B ( 1 ) “ anyth i n go f

p e c un i ar y v alu e ”m e an s anyth i n go f v alu ei nth ef

o r mo f m o n e y, a neg otiable instrument, a commercial intere st, or any thing e lse the primar

y signific anceof which is ec onomic advantag e; and (2) “ fac ility

of interstatecommerc e” inc ludes means of transportation and communication. 18 U.S.C. § 1952A (1984). Congress slightly

modified the murder-for-hire statute ag ain in 1990, addinga new paragraph, 5 § 1958(b)( 3), which e xplains the usag e of theterm “State.”See Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub . L . N o. 10 1- 64 7, § 1 20 5(k) , 1 04 Stat. 4 78 9, 48 31 (1 99 0) . Su bs e qu e nt re vis ion s tothestatut e were minor and did not alter the substantive languag e of § 1958( a) or § 1958(b). SeeViolent Crime Control and L aw Enf orcement Act of 1994, Pub. L . No. 103-322, §§ 600003(a)(ii), 140007(b), 320105, 330016( 1)(L), (N) , (Q), 108 Stat. 1796, 1969, 2033, 2111, 2147-48 ( 1994) (incre asingthe maximum penalty for violations of the statute) ; Economic Espionag e Ac t of 1996, Pub. L . No. 104-294, § 601(g)(3) , 110 Stat. 3488, 3500 (1996) (fixing minor er rors in the 1994 amendment) . 11 1952A ( 1984) , a m e nde d by 18 U . S . C . § 1958 ( 1988) . T he i nt e r s t a t e ne xus re qu i re m entse tforth i n § 19 52 A cl osel y m i rr ored the l angu age use d i n the ori gi nal v e r s io n o f

th e T r a v e l A c t u n d e r§ 1 9 5 2 . In 19 88 , C on gres s pas se d the A nt i -D rug A bu se A ctof 19 88 , w hi ch, i nt er a lia , r e c a s t § 1 9 5 2 A a s § 1 9 5 8 . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 ( 1 9 8 8 ) . T h e te x t o f § 1 9 5 8 is i de nt i c a l t o the pr e vi ous ve r s i on unde r§ 1952A , s a ve the a ddi t i on of the phr a s e “ or w h o c o n s p ir e s to d o s o ” a f te rth e w o r d s “p e c u n ia ry v a lu e .” 5 W e be gi n oura na l y s i s w i th the t e xtof the s t a tut e . W e m us tf

i r s tdi s c e rn the bur de n tha t§ 1958( a ) ’ s j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e nti m pos e s upon the gove rnm e nta nd th e n ju d g e w h e th e rth e g o v e rn m e n t m e t th is b u r d e n .12

1. T h e P lain Me an in g of

18 U . S. C . § 1958 O u ra n a ly s is b e g in s w ith a n e x a m in a tio n o f th e la n g u a g e o f

th e s ta tu te its e lf

. S e e R J R N a b is c o , I n c . v . U n ite d S ta te s , 9 5 5 F .2 d 1 4 5 7 , 1 4 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . W e m us t“ de t e r m i ne w he the rthe l a ngua ge a ti s s ue ha s a pl a i n a nd una m bi guous m e a n in g w ith r e g a r d to th e p a r tic u la rd is p u te in th e c a s e .” R o b in s o n v . S h e ll O il C o. , 519 U . S . 337, 340 ( 1997) . “ T he pl a i nne s s ora m bi gui ty of s t a tut or y l a ngua ge i s det erm i ned b y r ef

er ence t o the l angu age i t se l f, the spec i fi c c on t exti n w hi ch that la n g u a g e is u s e d , a n d th e b r o a d e rc o n te x t o f th e s ta tu te a s a w h o le .” I d . a t 3 4 1 . W h e n d is c e rn in g a s ta tu te ’s p la in m e a n in g , c o u r ts m u s t e n d e a v o rto g iv e e f f e c t to a ll s ta tu to ry p r o v is io n s a n d c o n s tru e r e la te d p r o v is io n s in h a r m o n y w ith e a c h o th e r . S e e B o r g n e rv . B r o o k s , 2 8 4 F .3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir .) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) , c e r t. deni ed sub n om . B orgn erv. F l ori da B d. of D ent i stry , 12 3 S . C t . 68 8 (20 02 ); E m pl oy e e s of

the D e p’ tof

P ub. H e a l th & W e l f

a r e v. D e pa r tm e ntof

P ub. H e a l th & W e lf a r e , 4 1 1 U .S . 2 7 9 , 2 9 0 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ( “[ D ]if f e r e n t p r o v is io n s o f

th e s a m e s ta tu te no rm al l y s ho ul d b e c on strued consi st ent l y w i th o ne anot her. ”) . T w o c la u s e s in § 1 9 5 8 a r e c e n tr a l to th e in s ta n t c a s e . T h e f ir s t, r e d u c e d to th e r e le v a n t te x t, is “[ w ]h o e v e r. . . u s e s . . . a n y f a c ility in in te r s ta te . . . c o m m e r c e .” S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) . T h e s e c o n d is “‘f a c ility o f in te r s ta te c o mme r c e ’ i n c l u d e s me a n s o f tr a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d c o mmu n i c a t i o n . ” Se e 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 95 8(b)(2). W hi l e one m i gh texpectthatthe harm on i za t i on of tw o suchIndeed, this disagreement amongthe circuits that have addressed this issue highlights that 6 re a so na blejurist s c an dif

fer a s tothestatutor

y prov isi on ’sprop e r m e aning , re nd e ringit ambi guo us . As excerpted f

rom the cla

use “[w]hoever . . . use s . . . any fac ility in interstate . . . commerce.” 7 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a). 13 s e e m in g ly m a n a g e a b le c la u s e s w o u ld b e f a ir ly e a s y to a c h ie v e , th e r e is di sa gree m enti n o ur si st erci rc ui t s a s t o § 19 58 ’ s proper r ea ch. C om pare U ni t ed S t a t e s v. W e a the r s , 169 F . 3d 336 ( 6th C i r . ) ( f i ndi ng tha t§ 1958 r e qui r e s tha tthe fa ci l i ty a ctual l y be use d i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce ), ce rt . deni ed, 52 8 U . S . 83 8 (19 99 ); U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P a r e de s , 950 F . S upp. 584, 590 ( S . D . N . Y . 1996) ( s a m e ) , a f f’ d, 162 F .3 d 1 1 4 9 ( 2 n d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( tab le ) , w ith U n ite d S ta te s v . M a r e k , 2 3 8 F .3 d 3 1 0 ( 5 th C i r. ) ( fi nd i ng thatusi ng a f ac i l i ty c apabl e of i nt er st at e c om m er ce i s s uffi ci ent ), c e r t. d e n ie d , 5 3 4 U .S . 8 1 3 ( 2 0 0 1 ) . A t le a s t tw o c o m p o n e n ts o f § 1 9 5 8 c o n tr ib u te 6 to th is c o n f

u s io n . F ir s t, it is u n c le a rf

r o m th e te r m s o f

s u b s e c tio n ( a ) w h e th e rth e p h r a s e “in i nt er st at e . . . com m er ce , ” m od i fi es the spat i al l y proxi m at e nou n “ fa ci l i ty, ” s ee 7 M arek , 2 3 8 F . 3 d at3 1 6 , o r th e m o re rem o t e v erb “ u se. ” S ee i d . at3 2 4 -2 5 (Jo l l y, J. d is s e n tin g ) . I f

th e f o r m e ris th e c a s e , th e n “§ 1 9 5 8 ’s u s e o f a ‘f a c ility in in te r s ta te com m er ce ’ i s s ynon ym ou s w i th the use of a n ‘ i nt er st at e c om m er ce fa ci l i ty. ’ ” S ee i d. a t313. A s s uc h, the f oc us of s ubs e c t i on ( a ) ’ s j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e ntw oul d be on the type of f

ac i l i ty use d, no tthe m anner i n w hi ch i ti s use d. C on vers el y, an i nt erpret at i on focusi ng on the t erm “ uses ” s ug gest s a n al t ernat i ve concl usi on . “ If14

the phr a s e m odi f

i e s us e , the n the s t a tut e c l e a r l y r e qui r e s tha tthe pa r t i c ul a rus e be ‘in in te r s ta te o rf

o r e ig n c o m m e r c e .’” I d . a t 3 2 5 ( J o lly , J . d is s e n tin g ) ( e m p h a s is s u p p l i e d ) . S e e a l s o P a r e d e s , 9 5 0 F . S u p p . a t5 8 7 ( n o t i n g th a t“ th e r e a r e a tl e a s ttwo gram m at i ca l l y c og ni zabl e i nt erpret at i on s - - one stre ss i ng ‘ use’ and t he ot her s tr e s s in g ‘f

a c ility .’” ) . S e c o n d , it is n o tab le th a t w h ile § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) u tiliz e s th e p r e p o s itio n a l p h r a s e “in i nt e r s t a t e . . . c om m e r c e , ” § 1958( b) e m pl oy s the c onc e ptua l l y di s t i nc tphr a s e “ of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” A pl ai n rea di ng of the ph ra se “ i n i nt er st at e . . . com m er ce ” w ou l d see m t o stre ss the m anner i n w hi ch the fa ci l i ty i s use d (i . e. , a use that a c tua l l y i m pl i c a t e s i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ) , w he r e a s a s i m i l a re va l ua t i on of the p h r a s e “o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” im p lic a te s th e ty p e o f f a c ility th a t is u s e d . T h is di s t i nc t i on i s i m por t a nt . U nde rthe f or m e ri nt e rpr e t a t i on, the j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e nt of § 1958( a ) c oul d onl y be s a t i s f i e d i f the gove rnm e ntpr ove s tha tthe de f e nda nt a c tu a lly u s e d th e “f

a c ility in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e .” G iv e n th e f a c ts in th is c a s e , a construct i on thatstre ss es the m anner i n w hi ch a f ac i l i ty i s use d w ou l d requi re that the go vernm entshow thatD rury pl ac ed a t el epho ne ca l l thatac tual l y tra vel ed ou t si de the st at e of G eorgi a. In cont ra st , un der the go vernm ent ’ s vi ew , an i nt e rpr e t a t i on tha ts tr e s s e s the ty pe of f a c i l i ty us e d w oul d di c t a t e onl y tha tthe m e a ns of c om m uni c a t i on ut i l i z e d be c apa bl e “ of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . ” T he go vernm ent , there fore , ar gu es thati ti s onl y r equi re d t o d em on stra t e thatD rury15

used a t el epho ne t o sol i ci thi s w i fe ’ s m urder. Iti s uncl ea r f rom the di st i nct preposi t i on al ph ra se s e m pl oyed i n § 19 58 (a ) a nd § 1 95 8(b) w hi ch of these very di ff er entdefi ni t i on s c on veys the approp ri at e r ea ch of the st atut e’ s j uri sdi ct i on al n e x u s . I n s h o r t, th e s tru c tu r e a n d la n g u a g e o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 m a k e it im p o s s ib le t o di s c e rn a “ pl a i n a nd una m bi guous m e a ni ng w i th r e ga r d t o [ § 1958] . ” R obi ns on, 519 U . S . a t340; s e e a l s o P a r e de s , 950 F . S upp. a t587 ( “ T he phr a s e “ us e . . . a ny faci l i ty i n i n t erst at e o r fo rei g n co m m erce” is i n h eren t l y am b i g u o u s. ”). A s a consequence, w e m ustre sortt o al t ernat i ve ca no ns of st atut ory i nt erpret at i on . S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . M o n s a n to , 4 9 1 U .S . 6 0 0 , 6 1 1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) . 2 . Al l W o r d s Mus t , To The Ex te nt

Po s s ib le, Be G i v e n Me a ning

“ A basi c pre m i se of st atut ory c on struct i on i s thata s t atut e i s t o b e i nt erpret ed so thatno w ords shal l be di sc ar ded as bei ng m ea ni ng l es s, re du nd ant , or m er e surpl usage. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C anal s- Ji m enez , 94 3 F . 2d 12 84 , 12 87 (11t h C i r. 19 91 ). “ Iti s our du ty ‘ t o g i ve ef fe ct , i f possi bl e, t o every cl ause and w ord o f a s t a tut e . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e na s c he , 348 U . S . 528, 538- 539 ( 1955) ( quot i ng M o n tc la irv . R a m s d e ll, 1 0 7 U .S . 1 4 7 , 1 5 2 ( 1 8 8 3 ) ) . A v o id in g c ir c u m s c r ip tio n in ou r r ea di ng of the m urder- for- hi re st atut e r equi re s thatthe tw o cl ause s a ti ss ue here b e h a r m o n iz e d s o th a t n e ith e ris r e n d e r e d m e a n in g le s s .I f wewere to ac cept the proposition that different ter ms in a statute may

be used 9 int e rcha ng e a bly, th e n a

n e qu ally pla us ibl eint e rp retatio n o f t

hestatutewould

bethat § 1958(b)( 2) mea

nt to employ

the phra se “f

acility in interstate commerce.”Ba sed on this view, § 1 9 5 8 (b ) ( 2 ) s i mp ly p ro v i d e s e x amp l e s o f th em o d al i t i e s o f

i nt e r s t at ec o mm e rc eth atc ans at i s f y § 1958(a) if they

areused “in interstate commerce.”See 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) . 16 T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tthe phr a s e “ f a c i l i ty of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ” i n § 1958( b) ( 2) s i m pl y de f

i ne s the phr a s e “ f

a c i l i ty i n i nt e r s t a t e . . . c om m e r c e ” i n § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) . T h is ta c tic a s s u m e s th a t C o n g r e s s in te n d e d f o rth e w o r d s “in ” a n d “o f ” to b e u s e d in te r c h a n g e a b ly . B u t th is d e c e p tiv e ly s im p le c o n s tru c tio n is in h e r e n tly prob l em at i c. D es pi t e the conv eni ence of equat i ng the w ord “ i n” w i th the w ord

“ of, ” i ti s c l ea r thatthe tw o t erm s a re di ff er ent . A s aconsequence, thi s app roac h runs c ount e rt o the ve ry pr i nc i pl e tha ti ts e e ks t o e f f e c tby “ di s c a r d[ i ng] a s be i ng m e a n in g le s s , r e d u n d a n t, o rm e r e s u rp lu s a g e ” § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) ’s u s e o f th e w o r d “in .” 9 C anal s- Ji m enez , 94 3 F . 2d at12 87 . M oreover, i tdi st ort s the m ea ni ng of the w ord “u s e s ” in th e p h r a s e : “W h o e v e r. . . u s e s . . . a n y f a c ility in in te r s ta te . . . c o m m e r c e .” T o a voi d the s hor t c om i ngs of e qua t i ng tw o pl a i nl y di f f e r e ntt e r m s , w e r e a d § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) in h a r m o n y w ith § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) . A n a c c o r d b e tw e e n th e tw o s u b s e c tio n s is a c hi e ve d by r e c ogni z i ng tha t§ 1958( b) m e r e l y pr ovi de s e xa m pl e s of w ha tm i ght c ons t i tut e a “ f

a c i l i ty ” unde rthe s t a tut e . T hi s m a ke s s e ns e be c a us e § 1958( b) ( 2) doe s note ve n purpor tt o be de f i ni t i ona l , butr a the re xpl i c i t l y us e s l a ngua ge m a ki ng it e x e m p la ry . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) . U n lik e o th e rs ta tu te s th a t c le a r ly d e s ig n a teWe theref ore f ind ourselves in agreement with Judg e Jol ly ’s analysis in Marek, 238 F .3d at 10 324 (Jol ly , J . dissenting) , and with those ca ses holding that the fac ility ’s ac tual use must be interstate. SeeWeathers, 169 F .3d at 339; Parede s, 950 F. Supp. at 590. 17 a d e f in itio n s s e c tio n , § 1 9 5 8 s im p ly s ta te s th a t, “[ a ]s u s e d in th is s e c tio n . . .

‘ f a c i l i ty of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ’ i nc l ude s m e a ns of tr a ns por t a t i on a nd c o m m u n ic a tio n .” I d . ( e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ) . B e c a u s e it is n o t in tu itiv e th a t a

“ fa ci l i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce ” w ou l d i ncl ud e thi ng s s uch as at el epho ne or a pa s s e nge rc a r , thi s pr ovi s i on doe s not“ a c c om pl i s h[ ] a bs ol ut e l y nothi ng, ” a s the c onc urr e nc e c l a i m s , butr a the ri nc l ude s t e l e phone s i n the ty pe s of “ f a c i l i t i e s of in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” th a t m u s t b e u s e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e to s a tis f y § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) . R ea d i n thi s w ay , § 1 95 8(b) do es no tconfl i ctw i th § 19 58 (a ), as i tnei ther e qu at es tw o d if f e r e n t te r m s n o rd e f

in e s a p h r a s e n o t p r e s e n t in s u b s e c tio n ( a ) . I d . T h u s , a f a i thf ul appl i c a t i on of

the dua l pr i nc i pl e s tha t( 1) a s t a tut e s houl d notbe r e a d i n a m a n n e rth a t r e n d e r s its te r m s “m e r e s u rp lu s a g e ” a n d ( 2 ) c o u r ts s h o u ld try to h a r m o n iz e d is tin c t p r o v is io n s in a s ta tu te le n d s s u p p o r t to th e c o n c lu s io n th a t § 19 58 appl i es sol el y t o fac i l i t i es thatar e a ctual l y use d i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . 10 O th e rin te rp r e tiv e g u id e s c o u n s e l th e s a m e r e s u lt. 3 . Cle a rS ta te m e n t R u le P art i cu l arl y rel ev an tt o th e i n st an tcase i s th e p recep tth at“ i f C o n g ress i nt ends t o al t erthe ‘ usual const i tut i on al bal ance betw ee n the S t at es and t he F eder al G ove rnm e nt , ’ i tm us tm a ke i t s i nt e nt i on t o do s o ‘ unm i s t a ka bl y c l e a ri n the18

l a ngua ge of

the s t a tut e . ’ ” W i l l v. M i c hi ga n D e p’ tof S t a t e P ol i c e , 491 U . S . 58, 65 ( 1 9 8 9 ) ( q u o tin g A ta s c a d e r o S ta te H o s p ita l v . S c a n lo n , 4 7 3 U .S . 2 3 4 , 2 4 2 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) .

“ [T ] he cl ea r s t at em entrul e . . . ensure [s ] thatatt em pt s t o l i m i tst at e pow er[a re ] un m i st akabl e, there by structuri ng the l egi sl at i ve process t o al l ow the ce ntri fugal f o r c e s in C o n g r e s s th e g r e a te s t o p p o r tu n ity to p r o te c t th e s ta te s ’ in te r e s ts .” H u tto v. F i nne y , 437 U . S . 678, 706 n. 4 ( 1978) ( P ow e l l , J . c onc urr i ng i n pa r ta nd d is s e n tin g in p a r t) ( q u o tin g L a u r e n c e H . T r ib e , I n te r g o v e rn m e n ta l I m m u n itie s in L i t i gat i on , T axat i on , and R egul at i on : S epar at i on of P ow er s I ss ues i n C on trovers i es A bo utF eder al i sm , 89 H arv. L . R ev. 68 2, 69 5 (19 76 )) . T o app l y the cl ea r st at em en tru l e, w e m u stfi rstd et erm i n e w h eth er § 1 9 5 8 g en erat es fed eral i sm c o n c e rn s a n d , if

s o , a s s e s s w h e th e rC o n g r e s s m a d e its in te n tio n to a lte rth e f e d e r a ls ta te b a la n c e c le a rin th e te x t o f th e s ta tu te . We f i n d th a t§ 1 9 5 8 i m p i n g e s u p o n th e tr a d i t i o n a l p o we r s o f th e s t a t e s . As the S upr e m e C our tha s s t a t e d, “ [ w ] he n C ongr e s s c r i m i na l i z e s c onduc ta l r e a dy de nounc e d a s c r i m i na l by the S t a t e s , i te f f e c t s ‘ a c ha nge i n the s e ns i t i ve r e l a t i on b e tw e e n f

e d e r a l a n d s t a t e c r i mi n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . ’ ” U n i t e d St a t e s v . Lo p e z , 5 1 4 U . S. 549, 561 n. 3 ( 1995) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E nm ons , 410 U . S . 396, 411- 412 (197 3)). M urder, w hether by one’ s ow n h and o r f or hi re , i s aqu i nt es se nt i al exam pl e of acr i m e tra di t i on al l y c on si dere d w i thi n the S t at es ’ fund am ent al po l i ceContrary to the concur

renc e’s reasoningon this point , the clea r statement r

ule is not applied 11 on ly in c a se s whereCongre ss h a s to tally “ deprive d”thestate s o f a n a re a of tradition al st ate leg islative control. Rather, therule a pplies more broadly , such as when Congress “alter[s] ,” Wil l, 491 U.S. at 65, “upset[s] ,” Hilton v. S.C. P ub. Rys. Comm’n, 502 U.S. 197, 208 (1991) (O’Connor, dissenting), or “ signific antly chang e[s] the fe deral-state bala nce,”United States v. Ba ss, 404 U.S. 336, 349 (1971), as it has done here in enacting§ 1958. Th is m axim is p articula

rly a pp lic a blehere , wherea

broad re a dingof

§ 1 95 8( a) w ould 12 federalize virtually

ever y murder- for- hire scheme. Indeed, it is highly improbable that a

ny 19 po w er s. A cc ordi ng l y, § 1 95 8’ s f eder al i za t i on of m urder- for- hi re cr i m es ne c e s s a r i l y e nge nde r s a s hi f ti n the f e de r a l - s t a t e ba l a nc e . S e e i d. 11 In enact i ng § 1 95 8, ho w ever , C on gres s f ai l ed t o u se “ un m i st akabl y c l ea r” l angu age thatw ou l d si gn al i t s i nt entt o al t erthi s bal ance . Inst ea d, as di sc usse d s upr a P a r tI ( A ) ( 1) , the s t a tut e i s a m bi guous w i th r e ga r d t o i t s j ur i s di c t i ona l ne xus r e qui r e m e nt . I n the a bs e nc e of a c l e a rs t a t e m e ntof

c ongr e s s i ona l de s i gn, the S up re m e C ou rthas r ef

used t o i nt erpretam bi gu ou s f eder al st atut es i n a m anner that di s rupt s the de l i c a t e ba l a nc e be tw e e n s t a t e a nd f e de r a l pow e r . G r e gory v. A shcr oft , 50 1 U . S . 45 2, 46 0-46 4 (19 91 ). R ather, the C ou rthas i nstruct ed that w hen face d w i th tw o p l ausi bl e i nt erpret at i on s of a n am bi gu ou s f eder al cr i m i nal st atut e, court s s ho ul d g ener al l y app l y the al t ernat i ve thatdo es no ti m pu t e a n i nt ent i on up on C on gres s t o i nv ok e i t s f ul l com m er ce po w ert o regul at e c on du ct tra di t i on al l y c on trol l ed by the S t at es . S ee E nm on s, 41 0 U . S . at41 1-41 2; U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B a s s , 404 U . S . 336, 349- 350 ( 1971) ; R e w i s , 401 U . S . a t812. G i ve n the a m bi gui ty i n § 1958, the pl a i n s t a t e m e ntrul e di r e c t s us t o c ons true the s t a tut e i n a m an n er th atm i n i m i zes th e fed eral i n tru si o n o n st at e p o l i ce p o w ers. S ee B ass, 12murder- fo r- hirec ould b ese t in motion wi thout t hepa rtic ipa ntsavailingthemse lve s o f a t le a st on e“ fac ili ty

of int e rs tatec omm e rc e ”(e .g ., land and c e llular p ho ne s, walki e -t alki e s, a uto mob ile s, or the like) even though they may have travele d no further

than next door within the state’ s bo rde rs . A s discus se d in fra Part II (A)( 5) , th edra ft e rsof

theTrave l A c t w e rea c ute ly sens itiveto thi s p os sib ili ty

and int e nd e d togua

rd ag ains t it . Inco ntra s t , “[ a] l l o wi n g th e go v ernm entt o m ee tth e i nt er s t at e c o mm er ce re qu i re m entthro u gh 13 on ly a no min al sh ow ingof

a c onne c tio n toint e rs tatec omm e rc ewo uld do a s muc h to ‘complete ly

obliterate’ the distinction between national and local a uthority as if no jurisdictional re quire ment e xiste d at all. ”Unite d St ate s v . O do m, 2 52 F .3 d 1 28 9, 12 96 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 1) , c e rt . denied, 535 U.S. 1058 (2002) . 20 40 4 U . S . at35 0. T hi s a i m i s a cc om pl i shed throu gh a narrow i nt erpret at i on of § 1 9 5 8 ’s ju r is d ic tio n a l e le m e n t to r e q u ir e th a t th e f a c ility in q u e s tio n m u s t a c tu a lly b e u s e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . S e e id . 13

4. T h e R u le O

f L e n ity T he rul e of

l e ni ty i s a l s o appl i c a bl e t o ouri nqui ry i nt o the i nt e nde d s c ope of § 1958’ s j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e nt . I ts t a t e s tha t“ w he n the r e a r e tw o r a t i ona l r e a di ngs o f a c r im in a l s ta tu te , o n e h a r s h e rth a n th e o th e r , w e a r e to c h o o s e th e h a r s h e ro n ly w hen C on gres s has spok en i n cl ea r a nd defi ni t e l angu age. ” M cN al l y v. U ni t ed S t a t e s , 483 U . S . 350, 359- 360 ( 1987) ; s e e a l s o S c he i dl e rv. N a t i ona l O r ga ni z a t i on f orW om e n, I nc . , 123 S . C t . 1057, 1068 ( 2003) ( appl y i ng the rul e of l e ni ty t o the H o b b s A c t) . T w o v ita l f u n c tio n s a r e s e r v e d b y th e ru le : F i r s t , ‘ a f a i rw a rni ng s houl d be gi ve n t o the w or l d i n l a ngua ge tha tthe c o m m o n w o r ld w ill u n d e r s ta n d , o f w h a t th e la w in te n d s to d o if a c e r ta in l i ne i s pa s s e d. T o m a ke the w a rni ng f a i r , s o f a ra s pos s i bl e the l i ne s houl d be cl ear. ’ S eco n d , b ecau se o f th e seri o u sn ess o f cri m i n al p en al t i es, an d b ecau se21

c r i m i na l puni s hm e ntus ua l l y r e pr e s e nt s the m or a l c onde m na t i on of the c o m m u n ity , le g is la tu r e s a n d n o t c o u r ts s h o u ld d e f in e c r im in a l a c tiv ity . B as s, 40 4 U . S . at34 8 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on , ci t at i on s, and a foot no t e om i tt ed). G i ven am bi gu i ty i n a cr i m i nal st atut e, the rul e of l eni ty c ou nsel s us t o con strue i tm ore narr ow l y. Id. at34 7; se e a l so R ew i s, 40 1 U . S . at81 2 (“ In short , nei ther s t atut ory l a ngua ge norl e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory s uppor t s s uc h a br oa d- r a ngi ng i nt e rpr e t a t i on of [ th e T r a v e l A c t]. A n d e v e n if th is la c k o f

s u p p o r t w e r e le s s ap p a r e n t, a m b ig u ity concerni ng the am bi tof cr i m i nal st atut es shou l d b e r es ol ved i n favor of l eni ty. ”) ( c itin g B e ll v . U n ite d S ta te s , 3 4 9 U .S . 8 1 , 8 3 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ) . A p p lie d to § 1 9 5 8 , th is ru le i ns truc t s tha t§ 1958( a ) ’ s j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e nts houl d be i nt e rpr e t e d t o i nc l ude o n ly th e u s e o f

f a c ilitie s th a t a r e a c tu a lly e n g a g e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . 5. L eg isla ti ve H

isto ry F in a lly , a lth o u g h w e d o n o t f in d it n e c e s s a ry to r e ly o n le g is la tiv e h is to ry to r e s ol ve the que s t i on be f or e us , a r e vi e w of

§ 1958’ s l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y pe r s ua de s us th a tth e a f

o r e m e n t i o n e d i n t e rp r e t i v e g u i d e s l e a d t o th e c o rr e c tc o n c l u s i o n . As s t a t e d pr e vi ous l y , the m ode rn f e de r a l m ur de r - f

or - hi r e s t a tut e de r i ve s f

r om the T r a v e l A c t. S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 2 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . T h e T r a v e l A c t o r ig in a te d in a b ill f o rw a r d e d to C o n g r e s s b y A tto rn e y G e n e r a l R o b e r t F . K e n n e d y o n A p r il 6 , 1 9 6 1 . L e tt e rf r om R obe r tF . K e nne dy , A tt or ne y G e ne r a l , t o the V i c e P r e s i de nt( A pr . 6, 1961) , S . R e p. N o. 87- 644, a t4 ( 1961) , r e pr i nt e d i n 1961 U . S . C . C . A . N . 2664, 266622

( “ A tt orne y G e ne r a l L e tt e rof 1961” ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A r c he r , 486 F . 2d 67 0, 68 5 (2d C i r. 19 73 ). T hi s l ett erprop osed a s t atut e of l i m i t ed sc op e a i m ed at c o m b a tin g o r g a n iz e d c r im e a n d r a c k e te e r in g : B ecau se m an y rack et s are co n d u ct ed b y h i g h l y o rg an i zed syn d i cat es w h o se i nf l ue nc e e xt e nds ove rS t a t e a nd N a t i ona l bor de r s , the F e de r a l G ove rnm e nt s h o u ld c o m e to th e a id o f lo c a l la w e n f

o r c e m e n t a u th o r itie s in a n e f f o r t to st em su ch act i v i ty. A tt orney G ener al L ett erof 19 61 at4. A tt orney G ener al K ennedy m ade c l ea r that the pr opos e d bi l l w a s i nt e nde d t o c om ba tor ga ni z e d c r i m e s tha tc r os s s t a t e or n a tio n a l b o r d e r s : T he bi l l w hi c h I s ubm i tt o the C ongr e s s w oul d i m pos e c r i m i na l s a nc t i ons up on the pers on w ho se w ork t akes hi m ac ross S t at e or N at i on al bo un dari es i n ai d o f c ert ai n “ un l aw ful ac t i vi t i es . ” Id. T hu s, an i nt er st at e nexus w as ce ntra l t o the prop osed l egi sl at i on and j ust i fi ed the f e de r a l i z a t i on of

the s ubj e c tc r i m e s . S e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N a r de l l o, 393 U . S . 28 6, 29 0 (19 69 ) ( qu ot i ng K ennedy’ s s t at em entt o the C om m i tt ee thatthe A ct w oul d a s s i s tpr os e c ut i on w he r e “ the ‘ t op m e n’ of a gi ve n c r i m i na l ope r a t i on re si ded i n o ne S t at e butcond uct ed thei r i l l egal ac t i vi t i es i n ano ther” ). B eyo n d A tt o rn ey G en eral K en n ed y’ s l ett er an d t est i m o n y b efo re C o n g ress r e ga r di ng the f

ounda t i ona l T r a ve l A c t , the m a i n s ubs t a nt i ve hi s t or i c a l s our c e f or the curre ntm urder- for- hi re st atut e i s f ou nd i n a 19 84 S enat e S ub com m i tt ee R eportAs noted in Part II (A), supra, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act amende d the Travel Act 14 and adde d the murder-for-hire provision. 23 on the C om pr e he ns i ve C r i m e C ontr ol A c tof 1984. S e e S . R e p. N o. 98- 22

14 ( 1984) , r e pr i nt e d i n 1984 U . S . C . C . A . N . 3182, 3484. T hi s r e por tc ont a i ns l a ngua ge c o n v e y in g th e in te n d e d s c o p e o f th e s ta tu te ’s ju r is d ic tio n a l e le m e n t. F or exam pl e, the re po rtst at es thatthe draft er s s ou gh t“ t o ensure thatthe new m urder- for- hi re st atut e [ w ou l d b e] used i n app ropri at e c as es t o ass i stthe st at es ra ther than t o al l ow the usurpat i on of si gn i fi ca ntca se s by f eder al autho ri t i es that c oul d be ha ndl e d a s w e l l orbe tt e ra tthe l oc a l l e ve l . ” 1984 U . S . C . C . A . N . a t3484; s e e a l s o P a r e de s , 950 F . S upp. a t588 ( “ [ T ] hi s br i e f quot a t i on f

r om the l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory c onf

i r m s tha te ve n be f

or e the m us hr oom i ng of i nt e r s t a t e c om m uni c a t i on t ec hn ol og y s uch as beeper s, ce l l ul arph on es and em ai l , C on gres s w as concerned th a t th e m u r d e r - f

o r - h ir e s ta tu te w o u ld a llo w f e d e r a l ‘u s u rp a tio n ’ o f

e s s e n tia lly l oc a l c a s e s . ” ) . I n thi s r e ga r d, “ the c om m i tt e e [ not e d i t s ] a w a r e [ ne s s ] of the concerns of l ocal prosec ut ors w i th res pectt o the cr ea t i on of concurrentfe dera l j u ri sd i ct i o n i n an area, nam el y m u rd er cases, w h i ch h as h eret o fo re b een th e al m o st excl usi ve re spon si bi l i ty of s t at e a nd l ocal autho ri t i es . ” 198 4 U . S . C . C . A . N . at 3484. A s the r e por te xpl i c i t l y s t a t e s , “ the c om m i tt e e f ul l y appr e c i a t e [ d] tha tm a ny s t a t e a nd l oc a l pol i c e f

or c e s a nd pr os e c ut orof f i c e s a r e qui t e c apa bl e of ha ndl i ng a m u r d e r - f o r - h ir e c a s e n o tw ith s ta n d in g th e p r e s e n c e o f s o m e in te r s ta te a s p e c ts .” I d .24

T hus , w hi l e the r e por tnot e s tha tthe pr opos e d s t a tut e a l l ow s tha t“ the opt i on of f e d e r a l in v e s tig a tio n a n d p r o s e c u tio n s h o u ld b e a v a ilab le w h e n a m u r d e ris c om m i tt e d orpl a nne d a s c ons i de r a t i on f ors om e thi ng of

pe c uni a ry va l ue a nd the pr ope rf e de r a l ne xus . . . i s pr e s e nt , ” i d. , thi s “ doe s notm e a n, nordoe s the c om m i tt e e i nt e nd, tha ta l l ore ve n m os ts uc h of f e ns e s s houl d be c om e m a tt e r s of f e de r a l r e s pons i bi l i ty . ” I d. R a the r , t o the e xt e nttha tf e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on i s s ought ov ercr i m es w i th an i nt er st at e c om po nent , i t“ shou l d b e a ss ert ed se l ec t i vel y bas ed on s uc h f a c t or s a s the ty pe of

de f e nda nt s r e a s ona bl y be l i e ve d t o be i nvol ve d” a nd

“ the r e l a t i ve a bi l i ty of

the f e de r a l a nd s t a t e a uthor i t i e s t o i nve s t i ga t e a nd p r o s e c u te .” I d . ( e m p h a s is s u p p lie d ) . T h e s e p a s s a g e s f r o m th e S e n a te S ub com m i tt ee re po rti nd i ca t e thatthe draf t er s i nt ended § 19 58 (a )’ s j uri sdi ct i on al el em en tt o req u i re atl eastso m e “ i n t erst at e asp ect s” b eyo n d th e m ere i n trast at e u se of a c ar , t el epho ne, or ot her f ac i l i ty c apabl e of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . F ur the rs uppor tf

ora na rr ow r e a di ng of

the m ur de r - f

or - hi r e s t a tut e i s f

ound i n the e xa m pl e s tha tthe r e por tpr ovi de s of the r e qui s i t e j ur i s di c t i ona l ne xus . T he r e p o r t s ta te s th a t: a n in te r s ta te te le p h o n e c a ll is s u f f ic ie n t to tr ig g e rf

e d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n , a s it is unde rthe [ I nt e rna t i ona l T r a f f i c i n A r m s R e gul a t i ons , 22 C . F . R . §§ 120. 1- 130. 17 ( 1990) ] s t a tut e . B oth the pe r s on w ho or de r e d the m ur de ra nd th e ‘h it m a n ’ w o u ld b e c o v e r e d b y th e n e w s e c tio n p r o v id e d th e in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e o rm a il n e x u s is p r e s e n t.This disjoi nt between the leg islative history and an e xpansive interpretation of § 1958(a)’s 15 jurisdictional element wa s noted by the dissenters in Marek, who observed, “ [t ]he report doe s not assert that a

ny use of a telephone is suff

icient. Instead, it sug g ests that the ac tual use must be in interstate or f

oreign commerc e.” Ma

rek, 238 F .3d at 327 (Joll y , J . dissenting) . 25 Id. (e m ph as i s s up pl i ed). T hi s pas sa ge m akes pl ai n thatthe S ub com m i tt ee cont em pl at ed fe dera l j uri sdi ct i on on l y over c as es w here the part i ci pant s use d faci l i t i es i n th e co u rse o f i n t erst at e co m m erce. Ind eed , i tw o u l d m ak e l i tt l e sen se f o rth e S u b c o m m itte e e x p r e s s ly to in d ic a te th a t a n “in te r s ta te te le p h o n e c a ll is su ffi ci en tt o tri g g er fed eral j u ri sd i ct i o n ” i f i ti n t en d ed th atal l p h o n e cal l s – r e g a r d le s s o f

o r ig in o rd e s tin a tio n ( i.e ., e v e n in tr a s ta te c a lls ) – c o u ld a c h ie v e th is e n d . I d . 15 I n s um , the r e por tde m ons tr a t e s tha tthe S e na t e S ubc om m i tt e e di d noti nt e nd to f e d e r a liz e m u r d e r - f

o r - h ir e s c h e m e s w ith m e r e ly te n u o u s lin k s to in te r s ta te com m er ce . Inst ea d, on l y “ cr i m es w i th i nt er st at e f ea tures ” w er e t o b e prose cut ed f e de r a l l y . I d. T he ve ry not i on “ [ t ] ha ta de f e nda ntw ho ne ve rtr a ve l l e d f r om one s ta te to a n o th e r , c o n d u c te d a n in te r s ta te tr a n s a c tio n , o rc o m m u n ic a te d a c r o s s s ta te lin e s c o u ld n o w b e p r o s e c u te d u n d e rth is A c t b e c a u s e o f th e e v o lu tio n in c om m uni c a t i ons t e c hnol ogy runs a ga i ns tthe gr a i n of the s t a tut e ’ s l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory . ” P a r e de s , 950 F . S upp. a t588; s e e a l s o A r c he r , 486 F . 2d a t685 ( “ B oth the l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory s um m a r i z e d i n ouropi ni on a nd the a ddi t i ona l e xtr a c t s r e l i e d on i n the G ov ernm ent ’ s pet i t i on show thatthe ov erri di ng C on gres si on al pu rpose w as26

t o p erm i tth e fed eral g o v ern m en tt o actag ai n stm em b ers o f o rg an i zed cri m e w h o se a c t i vi ty c r os s e d s t a t e l i ne s w he n l oc a l l a w e nf or c e m e ntof

f i c e r s w e r e una bl e or un w i l l i ng t o d o so . . . . ”) . A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe l egi sl at i ve hi st ory s tr o n g ly s u g g e s ts th a t C o n g r e s s in te n d e d § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) ’s in te r s ta te n e x u s p r o v is io n to b e r e a d n a rr o w ly r a th e rth a n b r o a d ly ; th a t is , th e f a c ility in q u e s tio n m u s t a c tu a lly b e u s e d in a n in te r s ta te m a n n e rr a th e rth a n s im p ly b e c ap ab le o f s u c h u s e . 6. Co nc lus io n Re

g a r dingSe c tio n 1 9 5 8 (

a ) ’s J ur is dic tio na l

Ele m e nt B as ed o n th e f

o re g o in g , w e c o n clu d e th at 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 (a )’s j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e ntr e qui r e s tha ta de f e nda ntm us ta c tua l l y us e a f a c i l i ty i n a m an n er th ati m p l i cat es i n t erst at e co m m erce, no tj u stth atth e faci l i ty i t sel f p o ssess the c apa bi l i ty of

a f f e c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . W i th tha ti s s ue de c i de d, w e now turn t o the qu es t i on of w hether the go vernm entpres ent ed suff i ci entevi dence at tr ia l to d e m o n s tr a te th a t D ru ry ’s te le p h o n e c a lls a c tu a lly m o v e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . B . S u ff i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce W he the rthe r e i s s uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on i s a que s t i on of l a w w hi c h thi s C our tr e vi e w s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a r kof f , 242 F . 3d 991, 993 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T h e r e le v a n t in q u iry is “w h e th e r , a f te rv ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in the l i ghtm os tf

a vor a bl e t o the pr os e c ut i on, a ny r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ” I d. ( quot i ngDrury

does, however, mistakenly ref er to the signal as a

radio signal. This is incorre ct. Prior 16 to reachingthe ce llular tower c losest to the targ et-user ’s ce llular phone, a telephone signal sent from a la nd-line trave ls entirely

through terre strial means. It is only after that call has been switched by

the ce llular provider

to the cellular

tower c losest to the targ et subscriber that the signal pa sse s v ia

radiosignals. 27 J a c ks on v. V i r gi ni a , 443 U . S . 307, 319 ( 1979) ) . “ [ A ] l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r e nc e s a nd cred i b i l i ty ch o i ces [are] m ad e i n th e g o v ern m en t ’ s fav o r. ” U n i t ed S t at es v . M i l es, 2 9 0 F .3 d 1 3 4 1 , 1 3 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 3 S . C t. 7 0 7 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . T o s uppor ta m ur de r - f

or - hi r e c onvi c t i on unde r§ 1958( a ) , the gove rnm e nt m u s t s h o w th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t e ith e r( 1 ) tr a v e le d ( o rc a u s e d a n o th e rto tr a v e l) in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e o r( 2 ) u s e d th e m a il, o ru s e d a n y f a c ility o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e in a m a n n e rth a t q u a lif ie s a s in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 19 58 (a ). H er e, there i s no q uest i on thatD rury di d n ottra vel i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce orus e the m a i l “ w i th the i nt e nttha ta m ur de rbe c om m i tt e d. ” I d. T he r e f or e , the j ury ’ s ve r di c tw i l l onl y s t a nd i f the gove rnm e ntpr ove d be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt thatany of the t el epho ne ca l l s thatD rury m ade t o V al oze’ s c el l ul arph on e ventured o u ts id e th e s ta te o f

G e o r g ia . W e c on cl ud e thatthe go vernm entadequat el y s at i sf i ed i t s e vi dent i ary bur de n. D rury doe s notdi s put e the gove rnm e nt ’ s e xpe r tt e s t i m ony tha tthe te le p h o n e c a lls to V a lo z e ’s c e llu la rp h o n e tr a v e le d th r o u g h a s w itc h in g c e n te rin Ja cksonv i l l e, F l ori da before r ea chi ng thei r f i nal dest i nat i on . Inst ea d, D rury 16 s im p ly c o n te n d s th a t a “s ig n a l s e n t u n in te n tio n a lly a n d in a d v e r te n tly a c r o s s s ta teIn B onner v . Ci ty of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), theEl e venth 17 Circuit adopted as bindingprec edent all Fifth Circuit decisions hande d down prior to the c lose of business on September 30, 1981. 28 l i ne s ” i s t oo “ t e nuous a nd i ns uf f i c i e nt ” a c ont a c tf

or“ the gove rnm e ntt o s a t i s f y the j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e ntof § 1958. ” T hi s a r gum e nti s una va i l i ng. W e h a v e a lr e a d y d e te r m in e d th a t § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) ’s ju r is d ic tio n a l e le m e n t s o le ly i m pl i ca t es the use of f

ac i l i t i es thatac tual l y c ross st at e l i nes. S ee supra P artII (A ). T h u s, th e s tatu te re g u lates a “ch an n el o f in ters tate co m m er ce ,” an d C o n g re ss ’s au th o ri ty t o d o so i s q u i t e cl ear. S ee H earto f A t l an t a M o t el , In c. v . U n i t ed S t at es, 379 U . S . 241, 256 ( 1964) ( “ [ T ] he a uthor i ty of C ongr e s s t o ke e p the c ha nne l s of in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e f

r e e f r o m im m o r a l a n d in

ju r io u s u s e s h a s b e e n f

r e q u e n tly su st ai n ed , an d i s n o l o n g er o p en t o q u est i o n . ”) (q u o t i n g C am i n ett i v . U n i t ed S t at es, 242 U . S . 470, 491 ( 1917) ) . A c c or di ngl y , i ti s of no m om e nttha tD rur y ’ s t e l e phone c a l l s t o V a l oz e onl y i nc i de nt a l l y a nd uni nt e nt i ona l l y ve ntur e d outof s t a t e . T he undi s put e d f

a c ti s tha tthe y di d. W e , the r e f or e , c onc l ude tha tthe gove rnm e nt s a tis f ie d its e v id e n tia ry b u r d e n u n d e r§ 1 9 5 8 ( a ) . C i r c ui tpr e c e de nts uppor t s thi s c onc l us i on. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D a vi l a , 592 F . 2d 12 61 , 12 65 (5th C i r. 19 79 ), w e hel d thateven m i ni m al i nt er st at e c on t ac t s a re 17 s uf f i c i e ntt o s a t i s f

y the f e de r a l w i r e f

r a ud s t a tut e ’ s j ur i s di c t i ona l e l e m e nt . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 3. D es pi t e the t enuo us nature of the i nt er st at e c on t ac ti n D avi l a, e s s e nt i a l l y a “ pur e l y i nc i de nt a l ” r out i ng of a W e s t e rn U ni on w i r e tr a ns f e rthr ough29

the st at e of V i rgi ni a, w e uph el d the defendant ’ s c on vi ct i on . S ee i d. W e r ea soned tha t , s i nc e the w i r e tr a ns f e r s c oul d notha ve be e n c ons um m a t e d w i thoutthe in te r s ta te c o n ta c ts , th e in te r s ta te n e x u s w a s n o t “to o m in im a l a n d in c id e n ta l to s a tis f y ju r is d ic tio n a l d e m a n d s . . .; th e y w e r e e s s e n tia l, a n d th e y w e n t o f n e c e s s ity o n in te r s ta te f

a c ilitie s .” D a v ila , 5 9 2 F .2 d a t 1 2 6 4 . T he r out i ng of

D rury ’ s t e l e phone c a l l s thr ough the J a c ks onvi l l e s w i t c hi ng c e n te rw a s s im ila r ly “e s s e n tia l” to th e irc o m p le tio n . T h o u g h th e c o n ta c ts them se l ves w er e c ert ai nl y m i ni m al , the go vernm entpres ent ed suff i ci entevi dence a ttr i a l of the i ri nt e r s t a t e na tur e f ora j ury t o ha ve “ f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” T arko ff , 24 2 F . 3d at99 3. W e, there fore , r e je c t D ru ry ’s s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e c la im . C . T h e “I n I n t e r s t at e C om m e r c e ” Ju r y C h ar ge D rury nextar gu es that , re gardl es s of w hether the evi dence pres ent ed attri al m i gh thave been suffi ci entt o est abl i sh the j uri sdi ct i on al nexu s, the di stri ctcourt erre d b y i nstruct i ng the j ury that“ pay t el epho nes a nd ce l l ul art el epho nes a re

‘ fa ci l i t i es i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce ’ un der f eder al l aw . ” S uch an i nstruct i on , D rury m ai nt ai ns, re m ov es fr om the j ury’ s c on si dera t i on an es se nt i al el em entof a § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) v io la tio n : th e in te r s ta te n e x u s . C itin g th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in U ni t ed S t at es v. G audi n, 51 5 U . S . 50 6, 51 0 (19 95 ), D rury as se rt s thatthe di stri ct c our t ’ s i ns truc t i on vi ol a t e d hi s r i ghtt o ha ve the j ury de c i de w he the rhe “ i s gui l ty of30

every e l em entof the cr i m e w i th w hi ch he i s c harged, beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T he pr opr i e ty of

the tr i a l c our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons t o the j ury r e ga r di ng § 19 58 (a )’ s j uri sdi ct i on al el em enti s a n i ss ue of l aw w hi ch w e r evi ew de no vo . S ee U n ite d S ta te s v . L e o n a r d , 1 3 8 F .3 d 9 0 6 , 9 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . S ec t i on 19 58 (a )’ s i nt er st at e nexus re qu i re m enti s a n ess ent i al el em entof a m u r d e r - f o r - h ir e o f

f e n s e . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . T in o c o , 3 0 4 F .3 d 1 0 8 8 , 1 1 0 5 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 02 ) ( “ [T ] he use of i nt er st at e f ac i l i t i es i s asubst ant i ve el em entof T ra vel A ct of f e ns e s tha tm us tbe de c i de d by the j ury . ” ) ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P e rr i n, 580 F . 2 d 7 3 0 , 7 3 7 (5 th C i r. 1 9 7 8 )), cert . d en i ed su b n o m . H ern an d ez v . U n i t ed S t at es, 1 2 3 S . C t. 1 4 8 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . “T h e C o n s titu tio n g iv e s ac r im in a l d e f e n d a n t th e r ig h t to ha ve a j ury de t e r m i ne , be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt , hi s gui l tof e ve ry e l e m e ntof

the cr i m e w i th w hi ch he i s c harged. ” G audi n, 51 5 U . S . at52 2-23 . A s aconsequence, D rury w as ent i t l ed t o h ave the j ury det erm i ne w hether § 19 58 (a )’ s j uri sdi ct i on al e l e m e ntw a s s a t i s f

i e d. I d. a t513 ( not i ng tha tthe r e i s a “ hi s t or i c a l a nd const i tut i on al l y guara nt ee d ri gh tof cr i m i nal defe nd ant s t o d em and t hatthe j ury d e c id e g u ilt o rin n o c e n c e o n e v e ry is s u e , w h ic h in c lu d e s ap p lic a tio n o f th e la w to the fa ct s” ). W e h a v e a lr e a d y d e te r m in e d th a t th e p h r a s e “f a c ility in in te r s ta te . . . com m er ce ” i s notthe funct i on al equi val entt o “ fa ci l i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ”Th eg ov e rnment c ite s o ur de c isi on in Unit e d St ate s v . Ca stl eberr y , 1 16 F .3 d 1 38 4, 13 89 (1 1th 18 Cir. 1997), in support of its contention that the district court’s instruction wa s proper . But in that c a sethedis tric t c ourt

de fine d th ephra se“ int e rs tatec omm e rc e ,”no t “ fac ili ty in inters tate commerc e.” Moreover , the Castleber ry court merely

stated that “if you believe beyond a rea sonable doubt that the de fenda nt committed ex tortion . . . and you believe that the Go vernment’ s evide nc ere g ardingtheimp a c t on int e rs tatec omm e rc ebeyon d a re a so na bledo ub t, then, as a matter of la

w, the jurisdictional re quirements of theHobbs Act . . . have been met.” I d. This instruction, which does not state that the de fenda nt’s conduct c onstitut es, per se, interstate c ommerce , properly left it to the jury

to determine whether

the interstate ne xus had be e n p ro ven b e yon d a

re a so na bledo ub t. 31 S ee supra, P artII (A )( 2). W here as the l att erph ra se i ncl ud es al l fa ci l i t i es thatar e c apa bl e of

e f f e c t i ng i nt e r s t a t e c om m uni c a t i on, the f or m e rphr a s e r e qui r e s tha tthe f a c i l i ty a c tua l l y be us e d i n a m a nne rtha ttr a ve r s e s s t a t e bounda r i e s . B y i ns truc t i ng the j ury thatthe use of apay or c el l ul arph on e i s perse i nt er st at e c om m er ce un der § 1 9 5 8 (a ), th e d istrict co u rt b o th re m o v ed an elem en t o f th e c rim e f ro m th e ju ry ’s co n sid er atio n an d d id so b y w ay o f a fa u lty d ef in it io n . T h u s, th e d istrict co u rt’s

18 i n s tru c t i o n s t o th e j u ry c o n s t i tu t e d a n e rr o n e o u s s t a t e m e n to f th e l a w. B utthi s c on cl usi on do es no tend o ur i nq ui ry . In addi t i on t o fi nd i ng error, w e m us tde t e r m i ne w he the rtha te rr orpr ovi de s gr ounds f ora r e ve r s a l . C hapm a n v. Ca l i f o rn i a , 3 8 6 U . S. 1 8 , 2 2 ( 1 9 6 7 ) ( “ W e c o n c l u d e th a tth e r e ma y b e s o me c ons t i tut i ona l e rr or s w hi c h i n the s e tt i ng of apa r t i c ul a rc a s e a r e s o uni m por t a nta nd i nsi gn i fi ca ntthatthey m ay , consi st entw i th the F eder al C on st i tut i on , be deem ed harm l es s, no tre qu i ri ng the aut om at i c r ever sa l of the conv i ct i on . ”) . A j ury i n stru ct i o n w h i ch o m i t s an el em en to f th e ch arg ed o ffen se i s su b j ectt o h arm l ess e rr ora na l y s i s . S e e N e de rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 527 U . S . 1, 9 ( 1999) ( “ [ A ] n i ns truc t i on32

thatom i t s a n el em entof the offens e does notnece ss ar i l y r ender a c ri m i nal tri al fund am ent al l y unfai r or a n u nrel i abl e vehi cl e f or det erm i ni ng gu i l tor i nn ocence. ”) ; R o s s v . U n ite d S ta te s , 2 8 9 F .3 d 6 7 7 , 6 8 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 3 S . C t. 9 4 4 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e ap p r o p r ia te h a r m le s s e rr o rte s t in th is c o n te x t is “w h e th e rit ap p e a r s ‘b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t th e e rr o rc o m p la in e d o f d id n o t c o n tr ib u te t o the ve r di c tobt a i ne d. ’ ” N e de r , 527 U . S . a t15. He r e , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l e l e m e n ti n s tru c t i o n wa s h a r m l e s s . At tri al , the go vernm entpres ent ed evi dence thatthe t el epho ne ca l l s betw ee n D rury and V al oze tra vel ed fr om G eorgi a t o F l ori da and t hen b ac k t o G eorgi a. D rury ne i the rof

f e r e d t e s t i m ony t o c ount e rthi s e vi de nc e nordi s put e d i t s ve r a c i ty on ap p e a l. G iv e n th a t th e f a c tu a l f o u n d a tio n f

o rth e § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) ju r is d ic tio n a l n e x u s is unc ont e s t e d, w e c a nnotc onc l ude tha tD rur y ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s w e r e i m pugne d by th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s e rr o n e o u s s ta te m e n t o f th e la w . S e e id . W e h a v e n o r e a s o n a b le d o u b tth a t , h a d th e j u ry b e e n p r o p e r l y i n s tru c t e d , i tw o u l d h a v e r e a c h e d th e s a me r e s ul t . N e de r , 527 U . S . a t15. A l though the di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n i ns truc t i ng the j ury tha tt e l e phone s a r e pe rs e “ f a c i l i t [ i e s ] i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , ” w e c onc l ude th a t th is e rr o rw a s h a r m le s s .

D . T r u t h f

u l P e r s on E vi d e n c e U n d e r F e d . R . E vi d . 608( a) ( 2) D rury nextchal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o excl ud e e vi dence that h e is a tru th f

u l p e r s o n . D ru ry c o n te n d s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t a f f ir m a tiv e lyDrury

al s o co nt en d s th atth e go v ernm entev i d en ce d i t s i nt entt o att ac k

h i s ch ar ac t er

d uri n g a 19 sidebar me etingwith the trial judg e. In that conver sation, the g overnment’s attorney stated that “[t] his is not a collateral material [sic], he has made c haracter an issue in his defense.” B ut e i th e r m i s t ak e n l y o r

w i thi nt e nt , D r

ur y t ak e s th i s s t at e m e nte nt i re l y o uto f c o nt e x t . Inre al i ty, that quoted statement re fer red not to Drur

y ’s “c haracter

for truthfulne ss,” but to the “cha rac ter of the re lationship” between himself and Whatley, as is shown by a statement made by

the pros e c uto r a

few s e c on ds e arl ier: “ thi s d e fendant h a s madeit a lin c hp in o f his de fens ethat hi s re latio ns hipwi th Mr. Whatley wa s o f a pa rticula r cha rac ter. ”Th e re fo re , w ede c lin eto add re ss this purported er

ror. Rule 608(a) (2) state s that “evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the c haracter 20 of the witness for

truthfulness has be en attac ked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.” Fe d. R. Evid. 608(a)( 2) (emphasis supplied). 33 chal l enged h i s bel i evabi l i ty. A s s uch, D rury ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtabused 19 i t s di s c r e t i on by ba rr i ng r e ha bi l i t a t i ve e vi de nc e unde rthe “ othe rw i s e a tt a c ke d” prov i si on i n R ul e 608 (a )( 2) of the F eder al R ul es of E vi dence. 20 T hi s C our tr e vi e w s a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs f or“ a c l e a ra bus e of d iscr etio n .” T in o co , 3 0 4 F .3 d at 1 1 1 9 (c it atio n o m itted ). A d istrict co u rt’s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs w i l l onl y be r e ve r s e d i f the r e s ul t i ng e rr or“ a f

f e c t e d the de f e nda nt ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” I d. ( c i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a nds , 184 F . 3d 1322, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ) . “ T he tr i a l j udge i s gi ve n br oa d di s c r e t i on i n rul i ng on the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of

c ha r a c t e rt e s t i m ony . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S ol om on, 686 F . 2d 863, 87 4 (11 th C i r. 19 82 ). A ftera c ar ef

u l rev iew o f th e p er ti n en t ex ch an g es b etw ee n th e g o v er n m en t’ s c ouns e l a nd D rury , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n ex cl u d i n g th e p ro ffered t est i m o n y. In g en eral , “ [t ] h e cred i b i l i ty o f a w i tn ess m a y be a tt a c ke d ors uppor t e d by e vi de nc e i n the f or m of opi ni on orr e put a t i on, but34

evi dence of a w i tness es ’ [s i c] truthful char ac t eri s a dm i ss i bl e onl y a ft erchar ac t er f ortruthf ul ne s s ha s be e n a tt a c ke d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H i l t on, 772 F . 2d 783, 786 ( 11th C i r . 1985) ( c i t i ng F e d. R . E vi d. 608( a ) ) ( e m pha s e s s uppl i e d) . A n “ a tt a c k” tha tc ons i s t s of

“ G ove rnm e ntc ouns e l poi nt i ng outi nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n t e s t i m ony a nd a r gui ng tha tthe a c c us e d’ s t e s t i m ony i s notc r e di bl e doe s notc ons t i tut e a n a tt a c k on the ac cuse d’ s r eput at i on for truthful ness w i thi n the m ea ni ng of R ul e 608 . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. D anehy, 68 0 F . 2d 13 11 , 13 14 (11t h C i r. 19 82 ). T hi s i s pre ci se l y w hat oc c urr e d dur i ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of D rur y a nd, the r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n e xc l udi ng the de s i r e d r e put a t i on f or tru th f u ln e s s te s tim o n y . E. Pr i o r C o ns i s t e nt St a t e m e nt s U nde r Fe d. R . Ev i d. 8 0 1 ( d) ( 1 ) ( B) D rury advances tw o argum ent s i n sup po rtof hi s a ss ert i on thatthe di stri ct c our ta bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n r e f us i ng t o a l l ow hi s s on D on t o t e s t i f y r e ga r di ng a s t a t e m e ntD rury m a de s ubs e que ntt o hi s a rr e s t . F i r s t , he c ont e nds tha tthe st at em en tw as ad m i ssi b l e u n d er R u l e 6 1 3 (b ) o f th e F ed eral R u l es o f E v i d en ce as a pr i orc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e nttha t“ m a y be us e d f orr e ha bi l i t a t i on w he n the s t a t e m e nt has aprob at i ve force bear i ng on cr edi bi l i ty bey on d m er el y s ho w i ng re pet i t i on . ” S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. P i erre , 78 1 F . 2d 32 9, 33 3 (2d C i r. 19 86 ). D rurycl ai m s that D on ’ s t es t i m on y w ou l d h ave r ebut t ed the go vernm ent ’ s c harge thathe fabri ca t ed the r ol e - pl a y i ng s t ory a nd i s pr oba t i ve of hi s c r e di bi l i ty on thi s i s s ue . S e c ond,35

D rury a r gue s tha tunde rF e d. R . E vi d. 801( d) ( 1) ( B ) , hi s s t a t e m e nt s t o hi s s on s houl d ha ve be e n a dm i tt e d be c a us e the y w e r e m a de be f or e he ha d the m ot i ve or op po rtun i ty t o fabri ca t e ast ory. S ee F ed. R . E vi d. 80 1(d)(1)(B). D rury aver s that th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y s im p ly ap p ly in g a “te m p o r a l litm u s te s t,” de t e r m i ni ng tha ts i nc e the s t a t e m e nt s w e r e m a de a f t e rthe a rr e s tD rur y pos s e s s e d a m ot i ve t o f

a br i c a t e a nd the s t a t e m e nt s w e r e nota dm i s s i bl e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P r i e t o, 232 F . 3d 816, 822 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( r e j e c t i ng a “ br i ghtl i ne rul e tha tm ot i ve to f a b r ic a te n e c e s s a r ily a n d a u to m a tic a lly a tta c h e s u p o n a rr e s t” ) . “A d is tr ic t c o u r t is g r a n te d b r o a d d is c r e tio n in d e te r m in in g th e a d m is s ib ility of a pr i orc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e ntunde rF e d. R . E vi d. 801( d) ( 1) ( B ) a nd w i l l notbe re vers ed abse nta c l ea r s ho w i ng of abuse of di sc re t i on . ” I d. at81 9 (ci t i ng U ni t ed S ta te s v . R e e d , 8 8 7 F .2 d 1 3 9 8 , 1 4 0 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g D ru ry ’s r e q u e s t to a d m it h is s o n ’s te s tim o n y r e g a r d in g th e a lle g e d p r io rs ta te m e n ts . F ir s t, c o n tr a ry to D ru ry ’s a s s e r tio n s , R u le 6 1 3 ( b ) is in ap p lic a b le to th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e . T h a t ru le is pe r t i ne ntonl y w he r e a pa r ty s e e ks t o i ntr oduc e “ e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e of a pr i or i ncon si st entst at em entby a w i tness . . . . ” F ed. R . E vi d. 61 3(b). D rury ’ s proff er ed s t a t e m e ntw a s not“ a pr i ori nc ons i s t e nts t a t e m e nt ” ; r a the r , i tw a s c ons i s t e nta nd, th e r e f o r e , R u le 6 1 3 ( b ) d o e s n o t ap p ly . S e c o n d , D ru ry ’s r e lia n c e u p o n R u leRul e80 1( d) (1 )(B ) s tate s: 21 A s tate ment i s n ot h e ars ay if . . . [t]h ede c lara

nt t e sti fi e s at th etrial or

he aringand

is subject to cross- examination concer ning thestatement, and thestatement is . . . consistent wi thth e d ec l ar ant ’s t es t i m o ny an d i s o ff er edt o reb utanexp re s s o r i mp l i edch arge ag ainst the dec lara

nt of rec ent fa

brication or improper influenc e or motive.” Fe d. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) . 36 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B ) a n d P r ie to f o rth e p r o p o s itio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its 21 d i scret i o n b y ap p l yi n g a “ t em p o ral l i tm u s t est ” t o th e p ro ffered st at em en t s i s al so m i s pl a c e d. I ti s true tha ti n P r i e t o, 232 F . 3d a t820, w e de c l i ne d t o a dopta “ br i ght l i ne , pe rs e rul e [ unde rF e d. R . E vi d. 801( d) ( 1) ( B ) ] ba rr i ng the a dm i s s i on of a ny pri or consi st entst at em ent s m ade by aw i tness fol l ow i ng arre st . ” B utw e a l so st at ed tha t“ w he the ra w i tne s s ha d a m ot i ve t o f a br i c a t e w he n [ the ] pr i orc ons i s t e nt st at em ent s w er e m ade i s pl ai nl y aqu es t i on of fa ctt o b e r es ol ved b y the tri al court b a s e d p r e c is e ly o n th e p a r tic u la rc ir c u m s ta n c e s o f a n in d iv id u a l c a s e .” I d . a t 8 2 1 . H er e, af ter r ev iew in g th e p ro ff

er ed statem en t, th e d istrict co u rt co n clu d ed th at “[i] n m y vi e w , the c ondi t i ons e s t a bl i s he d by thi s c a s e of the a dm i s s i bi l i ty of

s uc h a s t a t e m e ntha ve notbe e n e s t a bl i s he d he r e . ” W hi l e a m or e de t a i l e d s e tof f i ndi ngs on thi s t opi c w oul d ha ve e a s e d ouri nqui ry , the r e c or d pr ovi de s a m pl e s uppor tf or th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t D ru ry , s u b s e q u e n t to h is a rr e s t, h a d a d e q u a te m ot i ve a nd oppor tuni ty t o f a br i c a t e the s t or y tha the a l l e ge dl y t ol d hi s s on. S e e i d. a t 8 2 1 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in th is r e g a r d . F. R e f us e d J ur y I ns t r uc t i o ns37

L a s tly , D ru ry u r g e s th is C o u r t to f in d e rr o rin th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e f u s a l to g iv e tw o r e q u e s te d ju ry in s tru c tio n s . T h e f ir s t p r o p o s e d in s tru c tio n , q u o te d in f u ll s u p r a P a r t I , a d d r e s s e s im p r o p e rin v e s tig a tiv e te c h n iq u e s a n d th e c r e d ib ility i nf e r e nc e s tha tj ur or s m a y dr a w f r om the m r e ga r di ng the t e s t i m ony of gove rnm e nt w i tness es . D rury cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s c re di bi l i ty i nstruct i on s w er e i ns uf f i c i e ntdue t o ove r - br e a dth a nd s e ve r e l y hi nde r e d hi s de f e ns e . T he s e c ond i n stru ct i o n th atD ru ry p ro p o sed i s 1 1 th C i rcu i tP att ern Ju ry In stru ct i o n 6 . 7 , al so q u o te d in f

u ll s u p r a P a r t I , w h ic h c o n c e rn s a w itn e s s ’s r e p u ta tio n f o rtru th f u ln e s s in th e c o m m u n ity . D ru ry a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in decl i ni ng t o p rovi de thi s i nstruct i on because W hat l ey , w ho m D rury char ac t er i ze s a s the c rux of

the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e , w a s s how n a ttr i a l t o ha ve a ba d r e put a t i on f o rtru th f u ln e s s in th e c o m m u n ity .

“ T hi s C ou rtre vi ew s adi stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o g i ve a propo se d j ury i ns truc t i on f

ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F utr e l l , 209 F . 3d 1286, 12 88 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). “ T he di stri ctcourt ’ s r ef usal t o g i ve the re qu es t ed i ns truc t i on i s r e ve r s i bl e e rr oronl y i f ( 1) the i ns truc t i on i s s ubs t a nt i a l l y c or r e c t , ( 2) th e in s tru c tio n w a s n o t a d d r e s s e d in th e c h a r g e a c tu a lly g iv e n , a n d ( 3 ) th e f a ilu r e to gi ve the r e que s t e d i ns truc t i on s e r i ous l y i m pa i r e d the de f e nda nt ’ s a bi l i ty t o pr e s e nt a n e f f e c tiv e d e f

e n s e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . D e L a M a ta , 2 6 6 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .38

W e f i nd no error i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on no tt o g i ve D rury ’ s r equest ed i ns truc t i ons . D rury ’ s s ugge s t e d non- pa tt e rn c ha r ge w a s s upe r f l uous , a s the i ns truc t i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d pr ovi de a de qua t e l y a ddr e s s e d the i s s ue of w itn e s s c r e d ib ility . T h e “d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s b r o a d d is c r e tio n in f o r m u la tin g its char ge as l on g as the charge a cc urat el y r ef l ec t s the l aw and t he fa ct s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. G ol d, 74 3 F . 2d 80 0, 81 9 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ). B ec ause the charge gi ven a d e q u a t e l y p r e s e n t e d th e l a w a n d th e f a c t s r e g a r d i n g wi tn e s s c r e d i b i l i ty , we c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by r e f us i ng t o gi ve D rury ’ s pr opos e d i ns truc t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F ul f or d, 267 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . N o rd id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n b y d e c lin in g to g iv e 1 1 th C ir c u it P a tte rn J u ry I n s tru c tio n 6 .7 . C le a r ly , th is c h a r g e is “s u b s ta n tia lly c o rr e c t” a nd, thus , s a t i s f

i e s the f i r s tpr ong of

the j ur y i ns truc t i on a na l y s i s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obe r t s , 308 F . 3d 1147, 1153 ( 11th C i r . 2002) , c e r t . de ni e d, 123 S . C t . 2232 ( 2003) . W i th r e ga r d t o the s e c ond pr ong, w e a gr e e tha ti ti s a c l os e que s t i on w h e th e rth e c h a r g e p r o v i d e d b y th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta d e q u a t e l y c o v e r s th e s a me t e rr i t ory a s the pa tt e rn i ns truc t i on pr of f e r e d by D rur y . W e a dm i ts om e l e ve l of c onc e rn be c a us e , w hi l e the r e que s t e d i ns truc t i on r e f e r s t o a w i tne s s ’ s “ r e put a t i on f o rtru th f u ln e s s in th e c o m m u n ity ,” s e e 1 1 th C ir . P a tte rn J . I n s tr . 6 .7 ( e m p h a s is added), the charge gi ven con ce rns s ol el y the bel i evabi l i ty a nd truthful ness of a39

w i tne s s . H ow e ve r , e ve n a s s um i ng a r gue ndo tha tthe pr opos e d pa tt e rn i ns truc t i on w as no tsuff

i ci ent l y a dd re ss ed i n the charge a ctual l y gi ven b y the di stri ctcourt , se e R obe r t s , 308 F . 3d a t1153, w e none the l e s s c onc l ude tha tD rur y ’ s a s s i gnm e ntof error m ustfa i l un der the thi rd pron g o f the anal ys i s. S ee i d. S peci fi ca l l y, D rury ha s nots how n tha t“ the [ di s tr i c tc our t ’ s ] f a i l ur e t o gi ve the [ r e que s t e d] i ns truc t i on s u b s ta n tia lly im p a ir e d [ h is ] a b ility to p r e s e n t a n e f f e c tiv e d e f

e n s e .” I d . W e per ce i ve no i m pedi m entt o D rury ’ s e ff ec t i ve defense i n thi s part i cul ar ca se . T hi s c on cl usi on i s bol st er ed by the fa ctthatthe di stri ctcourtperm i tt ed D rury t o a r gue vi gor ous l y t o the j ury tha tW ha t l e y pos s e s s e d a ba d r e put a t i on f or tru th fu l n ess th ro u g h (1 ) th e t est i m o n y o f tw o ch aract er w i tn esses, (2 ) a cro ssexam i nat i on of W hat l ey , and (3) the defens e’ s c l osi ng ar gu m ent s. S ee U ni t ed S t a t e s v. R y a n, 289 F . 3d 1339, 1345 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 123 S . C t . 324 ( 2002) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hi r i nos , 112 F . 3d 1089, 1101 ( 11th C i r . 1997) (f in d in g th at th e d istrict co u rt’s fa il u re to in stru ct d id n o t i m p air th e d ef en d an t’ s a bi l i ty t o de f

e nd w he r e the c our tpe r m i tt e d de f e nda ntt o e l i c i ts uppor t i ng t e s t i m ony a n d to m a k e c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts o n th e is s u e ) . C o u p le d w ith th e a r g u a b ly s a t i s f a c t ory truthf

ul ne s s i ns truc t i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d pr ovi de , w e c onc l ude thatthe courtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by re fusi ng D rury ’ s propo se d p att ern j ury in s tru c tio n .I I I . CONCL US I ON

B as ed on the foregoi ng , w e AF F I RM D rury ’ s m ur de r - f or - hi r e c onvi c t i ons unde r18 U . S . C . § 1958( a ) . W e a l s o AF F I RM D ru ry ’s c o n v ic tio n u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 9 24 (c ).Iagreewith my colleagues that the actual interstateuse of a fac ility , e.g ., the crossing of a 1 cellular telephone signal from Ge org ia to Florida and back, plainly

confers jurisdiction under § 19 58 (a). Ho wever, be c a

us eIbe lievethat suc h ac tual inters tatemov e ment i s unn e c e ssa ry to satisfy this section’s jurisdictional requirement, Ido not join section B of themajority opinion. 41 M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g e, co n cu rri n g sp eci al l y: I a gr e e w i th the m a

j or i ty tha tappe l l a ntC a r l M . D rur y ’ s c onvi c t i ons s houl d be a f f i r m e d, a nd a c c or di ngl y I j oi n i n the r e s ul tr e a c he d by m y c ol l e a gue s . I al so ag ree t ha tnone of the di s tr i c tcour t ’ s e vi de nt i a ry rul i ngs c ha l l e nge d by D rur y c ons t i tut e d a n a bus e of di s cret i o n , a nd I j oi n i n s e c t i ons D a nd E of the m a j or i ty opi ni on. M or e ove r , the m a j or i ty c orr e c t l y c onc l ude s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n r efu si ng t o c ha r ge t he j ury a s r e qu e s t e d by app e l l a nt , a nd a c c or di ng l y I j oi n s e c t i on F o f i t s op i ni on as w e ll. H o w ev er , I stro n g ly d isag re e w ith th e m ajo rity’s co n clu sio n th at 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 ’s ju r is d ic tio n a l e le m e n t c a n b e s a tis f ie d o n ly b y a s h o w in g th a t th e a c tio n ta k e n in fu rth eran ce o f a m u rd er-fo r-h i re sch em e i n v o lv ed th e actu al cro ssi n g o f st at e l i n es. I ns t e a d, I ha ve l i tt l e doubttha tthe pur e l y i ntr a s t a t e use o f an i ns trum e nt a l i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce is su ff i ci entt o con fe r j uri sdi ct i on un der § 19 58 . A s s uch, I a m u n ab l e t o j o i n i n se c tio n A o f th e m aj o ri ty o p i n i o n . A s a co ro l l ary, I al so 1 r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s a g r e e w i th th e ma j o r i ty ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n i n s e c t i o n C o f i t s o p i n i on th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d u n d e rU n ite d S ta te s v . G a u d in , 5 1 5 U .S . 5 0 6 , 1 1 5 S . C t.42

23 10 , 13 2 L . E d. 2d 44 4 (19 95 ), by i nstruct i ng the j ury thata t el epho ne i s perse a f a c ility in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . In U ni t ed S t at es v. L op ez , the S up re m e C ou rtre af fi rm ed thatthere ar e “ three broad c a t e gor i e s of

a c t i vi ty tha tC ongr e s s m a y r e gul a t e unde ri t s c om m e r c e pow e r . ” 514 U . S . 5 4 9 , 5 5 8 , 1 1 5 S . C t . 1 6 2 4 , 1 6 2 9 , 1 3 1 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 6 (1 9 9 5 ). “ F i rst , C o n g ress m a y r e g u la te th e u s e o f th e c h a n n e ls o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . S e c o n d , C o n g r e s s is e m pow e r e d t o r e gul a t e a nd pr ot e c tthe i ns trum e nt al i t i e s of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , or p e r s o n s o r th in g s in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , e v e n th o u g h th e th r e a t m a y c o m e o n ly f r om i ntr a s t a t e a c t i vi t i e s . F i na l l y , C ongr e s s ’ c om m e r c e author i ty i nc l ude s the p o w e rto r e g u la te th o s e a c tiv itie s h a v in g a s u b s ta n tia l r e la t i o n to in te r s ta te c om m e r c e [ , ] i . e . , thos e a c t i vi t i e s tha ts ubs t a nt i a l l y a f f e c ti nt e r s t a t e c om m erce.” I d. a t5 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 1 5 S . C t . a t1 6 2 9 - 3 0 ( c i t a t i o n s o mi t t e d ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Of p a r t i c u l a r i n te r e s t in th is c a s e is th e s e c o n d ty p e o f r e g u la tio n th a t m a y le g itim a te ly be unde r t a ke n pur s ua ntt o the c om m e r ce pow e r , the r e gul a t i on of the in s tru m e n ta litie s o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . T h e r e c a n b e little d o u b t th a t w h e r e C o n g r e s s c h o o s e s to e x e r c is e th e f u ll e x te n t o f

its c om m e r c e pow e ri tc a n p ro scr i be the pur e l y i ntr a s t a t e us e of a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . I nde e d, a l m os tw i thout ex ce pt i on, the c our t s of appe a l s ha ve uphe l d tha tpow e rof

C ongr e s s t o pr os c r i be w hol l y i ntr a s t a t e ac t i vi t i e s us i ng the i ns trum e nt al i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e . S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a s ne r , __43

F . 3d __ (11 C i r. 20 03 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe j uri sdicti on al re qu i re m entof the fe dera l

th m ai l fr aud st atut e, 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 1, w as sa t i sf i ed by the i ntra st at e del i very of a le tte rb y F e d e r a l E x p r e s s , c o n c lu d in g s p e c if ic a lly th a t “C o n g r e s s p r o p e r ly e xe r c i s e d i t s pow e runde rthe C om m e r c e C l a us e [ , ] U . S . C ons t . a r t . I , § 8, cl . 3 [, ] by r e g u la tin g p r iv a te a n d c o m m e r c ia l c a rr ie r s a s in s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s t a te com m er ce -- even tho ug h the cond uctt oo k p l ac e e nt i re l y i ntra state” ); U ni t ed S t at es v. G i l , 297 F . 3d 93, 100 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( uphol di ng the de f e nda nt ’ s m ai l f

r a ud c onvi c t i on a ga i ns ta C om m e r c e C l a us e ch al l e nge , r e a s oni ng tha t“ pr i va t e a nd c om m e r c i a l i nt e r s t a t e c a rr i e r s , w hi c h c a rry m a i l i ngs be tw e e n a nd a m ong s t a t e s a nd coun tri es , ar e i nstrum ent al i t i es of i nt er st at e com m er ce , no tw i thst andi ng the fa ct th a t t h e y a ls o d e liv e rm a ilin g s in tr a s ta te ” ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . P h o to g r a m m e tr ic D a ta S e r v s ., I n c ., 2 5 9 F .3 d 2 2 9 , 2 4 9 - 5 2 ( 4 C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( u p h o ld in g th e c o n s titu tio n a lity th of the m ai l fr aud st atut e, 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 1, as appl i ed t o i ntra st at e m ai li ng pl ac ed w i th p r i v a t e o rc o mme r c i a l i n t e r s t a t e c a rr i e r s ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 3 5 U . S. 9 2 6 , 1 2 2 S. C t . 12 9 5 , 1 5 2 L . E d. 2d 208 ( 2002) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a ke r , 82 F . 3d 273, 275- 76 (8 C i r. 19 96 ) ( up ho l di ng a c on vi ct i on un der the T ra vel A ct , 18 U .S .C . § 19 52 (a ) th (200 0), base d o n an ext ort i on vi ct i m ’ s use of an aut om atic te l l erm ac hi ne . . . that

“ tri g g ered an en t i re ly i n trast at e el ectro n i c tran sfer” b etw een tw o l o cal b an k s, b e c a u s e a n in te r s ta te n e tw o r k o f A T M s is a n in s tru m e n ta lity o f in te r s ta te com m er ce ).By

“old Fif th Circuit,” Imean simply the Fif th Circuit prior to its di vision int o the Fif th and 2 Eleventh Circuits. Notably, in Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11 Cir. 1981) th (en ba nc), theEleventh Circuit adopte d as bindingprec edent all Fifth Circuit decisions hande d down prior to the c lose of business on September 30, 1981. 44 C o n so n an tw i th th i s n earl y u n i fo rm v i ew o f C o n g ress’ s p o w er t o p ro scri b e th e i n trast at e u se

of the i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , t h e c our t s of appe a l s , i nc l udi ng the ol d F i f th C i r c ui t , r out i ne l y ha ve he l d the i nt e r s t at e co m m er c e r e qui r e m e ntof

2 vari ou s f

eder al cr i m i nal st atut es to b e sa ti sfi ed by the defendant ’ s use of a t el epho ne, because t el epho nes - - e ven w hen u se d t o com m un i ca t e w i th ano ther p e r s o n in th e s a m e s t a t e - - a r e in s tru m e n ta litie s o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . S e e , e .g ., U ni t e d S t a t e s v . G i l b er t , 181 F . 3d 152, 159 ( 1 C i r . 1999) ( uphol di ng a c onvi c t i on st un der 18 U . S . C . § 844 (e ) agai nst a C om m er ce C l ause chal l enge, re as on i n g th at

“ [t ] he use of the t el epho ne i n thi s c as e t o m ake ab o m b -threa tw as , w i tho utm ore, suff i c i e ntt o s us t a i n j ur i s di c t i on un de rthe i nt e r s t a t e c omme r c e c l a us e ” ) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. C l ay t on , 10 8 F . 3d 11 14 , 11 17 (9 C ir.199 7) (hol di ng thatbecause c el l ul ar th t el epho nes a nd ce l l ph on e I D nu m bers ar e i nstru m en tali t i es of i nt er st at e c om m er ce , prot ec t abl e und erthe se cond ca t egory of L op ez, n o further i nq ui ry w as nece ss ary t o s us t a i n a c onvi c t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 1029( a ) ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K unz m a n, 54 F . 3d 1522, 1526- 27 ( 10 C i r. 1995) ( uphol di ng the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the i ndi c tm e nt th f orm one y l a unde r i ng w he r e i ta l l e ge d the us e of a t e l e phone t o a c c om pl i s h the s c h e m e in q u e s tio n , s a y in g s p e c if ic a lly th a t “[ t]h e in d ic tm e n t . . . s p e c if ic a lly45

a l l e ge s a n e f

f e c ton i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e thr ough t h e u s e of i nt e r s t a t e hi ghw a y s , the use of t el epho ne and m ai l s, and t ra nsac t i on s i nv ol vi ng bank s a nd fi nanci al i nst i tut i on s e ng aged i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . . . . [t ] hi s i s su ff i ci entt o al l ege a n e f f e c ton i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ” ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; L ove r i dge v. D rea goux, 678 F .2 d 8 7 0 , 8 7 4 ( 1 0 C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) ( “[ P ]r o o f o f in tr a s ta te te le p h o n ic m e s s a g e s in th c onne c t i on w i th the e m pl oy m e ntof de c e pt i ve de vi c e s orc on tr i va nc e s i s s uf f i c i e nt t o c onf e rj uri sd i ct i o n i n a § 10( b) a nd R ul e 10b- 5 a c t i on. ” ) ; A l l e y v. M i r a m on, 614 F . 2d 1372, 1379 ( 5 C i r . 1980) ( “ T h i s C o ur tha s c ons i s t e nt l y he l d tha tthe th i ntra st at e use of the t el epho ne m ay confer j uri sdi ct i on ov era pri vat e a ct i on un der S ec t i on 10 ( b) a nd Rul e 10 b- 5. ” ) ; D up uy v. D up uy , 51 1 F. 2d 64 1, 64 1 ( 5 Ci r. th 1975) ( “ T hi s ap p ea l pr e s e nt s a na rr ow que s t i on of l a w - - D oe s the m a ki ng of i ntr a s t a t e t e l e phone c a l l s s a t i s f y the j ur i sd i ct i o n al r e qui r e m e ntof ‘ us e of a ny m e a ns ori ns trum e nt a l i ty of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ’ fo u n d i n § 10 of the S e c ur i t i e s E xc ha nge A c t o f 1 9 3 4 , 1 5 U . S . C . A . § 7 8j , an d S ecu ri t i es an d E x ch an g e C o m m i ssi o n R u le 10b- 5, 17 C . F . R . 240. 10b- 5. T he di s tr i c tc our t h el d t h ati tdi d not , a nd gr a nt e d the d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n f

o rs u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n a c o m p la in t w h ic h a lle g e d in tr a s ta te c a l l s a s t h e o n l y ba s i s f orf e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on. W e r e ve r s e . . . . ” ) ; M c G r e gor B oul e va r d C hur c h of

C hr i s tv. W a l l i ng, 428 F . 2d 401, 404 ( 5 C i r . 1970) ( r e f e rr i ng th to a te le p h o n e a s a n in s tru m e n ta lity o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ) .Th is s e c tio n p ro vide s, in f ull : 3 (a) Wh o e v e r trav e lsin

o r c a u s e s an o th e r

( in c ludingth einten d ed victim) to travel in interstateor foreign commerc e, or use s or ca uses ano ther ( inc ludingtheint e nd e d v ic tim) to usethemail o r a ny fac ili ty in interstate or f

oreign commerc e, wi th intent that a murder be committed in violation of the la ws of any State or the United States a s c on side ratio n fo r the re c e ipt of , or a s c on side ra

tio n fo r a promi se or agreement to pay, any

thi n g o f pecunia

ry value, or who conspire s to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for no tm o re than ten year s, or both; an d i f personal injury results, shall be fine d under this title or imprisoned for not morethan twenty year s, or both; and if de ath re sults , sh all bepunis he d b y de ath o r l if

eimp ri so nment, or shall be f

ined not more than $250,000, or both. (b ) As used in this section and sec tion 1959-- (1) “any thing of pecuniary

value”means a

ny thing of value in the form of money, a neg otiable instrument, a commer cial int ere st, or any thing e lse the primar

y signific anceof which is ec onomic ad va n tag e; (2) “facility of i nterstate commerc e” includes means of transportation and communication; and (3) “State” inc ludes a State of theUnited States, the District of Columbi a, and a

ny commonwealth, territory, or poss ession of the Unite d St ate s. 18 U.S.C. § 1958. 46 S i nce i ti s a l m ostaxi om at i c thatC on gres s c an proh i bi tthe pu re l y i ntra st at e use of fa ci l i t i es

o f i n t e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ( e . g. , t e l e phone s ) t o c om m i tc e r t a i n pr ohi bi t e d a c t i ons , the o n ly q u e s tio n h e r e is w h e th e rit d id s o in e n a c tin g § 1 9 5 8 . T w o o f th e th r e e c ir c u it 3 c our t s t o a ddr e s s thi s i s s ue ha ve a ns w e r e d thi s que s t i on a f f i r m at i ve l y , c onc l udi ng that§ 1 95 8(a) confers j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe pu re l y i ntra st at e use of an i nstrum ent al i ty of i nt er st ate c om m er ce i n furthera nce of a mu rder -f or-hi re sc hem e. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R i c he s on, __ F . 3d __ ( 7 C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng t h atthe th47

d ef en d an t’ s m ak in g o f in tras tate telep h o n e c alls, s ta n d in g alo n e, sa ti sf ied § 1 9 5 8 ’s j ur i s di c t i ona l r e q u i r e m e ntbe c a us e “ w he n C ongr e s s e l e c t s t o r e gul a t e unde rthe s e c ond pr o n g o f

Lo p e z , ‘ f

e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i s s u p p l i e d b y th e n a tu r e o f t he in stru m en tali ty o r f

ac il ity u se d , n o t b y s ep ar ate p ro o f o f in ters tate m o v em en t’ ” ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . M a r e k , 2 3 8 F .3 d 3 1 0 , 3 1 7 ( 5 C ir .) ( e n b a n c ) , c e r t. th deni ed, 53 4 U . S . 81 3, 12 2 S . C t . 37 , 15 1 L . E d. 2d 11 (200 1))) ; M ar ek, 23 8 F . 3d at 320 ( “ [ W ] h e n a f

a c i l i ty e mp l o y e d t o a d v a n c e mu r d e r - f o r - h i r e i s i n i n t e r s t a t e or fore i gn com m er ce general l y, the j uri sdi ct i on al el em entof § 1 95 8 i s s atisfied even th o u g h th e p a r t ic u la ru s e o f th e f a c ility o n th e s p e c if

ic o c c a s io n in q u e s tio n is o n ly in tr a s ta te .” ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . H ow e ve r , the m a

j or i ty i n thi s c a s e , l i ke the onl y othe rc i r c ui tc our tde c i s i on a ddr e s s i ng § 1 9 5 8 (a)’ s “ faci l i ty i n i n t erst at e co m m erce” req u i rem en t , U n i t ed S tat es v . W eath ers, 1 69 F. 3d 3 3 6 , 3 4 1 - 4 2 ( 6 Ci r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 2 8 U. S. 8 3 8 , 1 2 0 S. Ct . 1 0 1 , 1 4 5 L. th E d. 2d 85 ( 1999) , c onc l ude s othe rw i s e . M y c ol l e a gue s be gi n t h ei ra na l y s i s by ac cura t el y not i ng thatthere i s adi sc re pancy betw ee n the l angu ag e o f § 1 95 8(a) , w hi c h s pe a ks of

“ f a c i l i t [i es ] i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , ” a nd the l a ngua ge us e d i n § 19 58 (b)( 2), w hi ch defi nes “ fa ci l i t [i es ] of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” T hey then r e c o n c ile th is in c o n s is te n c y b y h o ld in g th a t th e p h r a s e “f a c i l i t y i n in te r s ta te co m m erce” refers so l el y to f a c ili t i es th atare u sed t o actu al l y cro ss st at e l i n es, w hi l e “ fa ci l i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce ” m er el y provid es ex am pl es of fa ci l i t i es thatThe en banc Ma rek de cision actually

resolved two dif

ferent appe als in fac tually analog ous case s 4 under themurder- for- hire statute. My discussion will focus on the Fifth Circuit’s evaluation of the Marek case , where the de fenda nt made an intra state transf er of funds by Western Union. 48 “m u s t b e u s e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e to s a tis f y § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) .” T h e m a jo r ity concl ud es thatbecause § 19 58 ’ s opera ti ve -- i . e. , j uri sdi ct i on -c on fe rr i ng -- la n g u a g e is th a t f

o u n d in § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) , o n ly th e a c tu a l c r o s s in g o f s ta te lin e s in fu rth eran ce o f a m u rd er-fo r-h i re s c h em e i s act i o n ab l e u n d er th i s sect i o n . T h u s, un der the m ajo rity’s vi ew , the use of an i nstrum ent al i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce (s uch as at el epho ne) i n an i ntra st at e m ann er i s i nsuffi ci entt o con fe r f eder al j ur i s di c t i on unde r§ 1958( a ) . M y c ol l e a gue s a tt e m ptt o bol s t e rthi s c onc l us i on by in v o k in g v a r io u s c a n o n s o f s t a tu t o r y c o n s tru c tio n , in c lu d in g th e u n r e m a r k a b le m axim th at al l w ords i n a st atut e m ust , t o the ext entpo ss i bl e, be af forded i n d ep ende nt m e a ni ng, the c l e a r s t a t e m e nt rul e , a nd the rul e of l e ni ty . T he y al so fi n d su p p o rtfo r th ei r co n stru ct i o n i n § 1 9 5 8 ’ s l eg i sl at i v e h i st o ry. S i m pl y s t a t e d, I be l i e ve tha tthe m a j or i ty ’ s a tt e m pt e d r e c onc i l i a t i on of § 1958( a ) a nd ( b) ( 2) d o e s v io le n c e to § 1 9 5 8 ’s b a s ic la n g u a g e a n d its o v e r a r c h in g s ta tu to ry s c h e m e . I a l s o f i nd unpe r s ua s i ve i t s r e l i a nc e on the i nt e rpr e t i ve c a nons m e nt i one d a bove a nd § 1 9 5 8 ’ s l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory . M or e pa r t i c ul a r l y , the r e a r e f ourdi s t i nc tr e a s ons w hy I di s a gr e e w i th m y c ol l e a gue s ’ i nt e rpr e t a t i on of thi s s e c t i on. F i r s t , the i rr e a di ng of § 1 95 8 i s l i ng ui st i ca l l y i m pl ausi bl e. In thi s vei n, I f i nd persuasi ve the t extual a na l y s i s of

th e F i f th C i r c ui ti n M a r e k. S e e 238 F . 3d a t316. T he M a r e k de f e nda nt 4To reiterate, the releva nt portion of § 1958 reads: “Whoever . . . use s or ca uses another 5 (i n cl u di n g th e i nt en d edv i ct i m ) t o u s e . . . th e m ai lo r any fa ci l i ty ini nt er s t at e o r f

o re i gn commerc e, with intent that a murder be c ommitt ed . . . shall be f ined under

this ti tle or imprisoned for not morethan ten year s, or both . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a) . 49 h a d tr ie d to e f

f e c t h is m u r d e r - f

o r - h ir e s c h e m e b y tr a n s f e rr in g f u n d s b e tw e e n p o in ts w i thi n the S t at e of T exas usi ng W es t ern U ni on , w hi ch un con tro v er sial l y i s a n i nstru m en tali ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . S ee i d. at31 3. In det erm i ni ng w hether thi s e nt i r e l y i ntr a s t a t e us e of a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e sat i sfi e d § 19 58 (a )’s j uri sdi ct i on al re qu i re m ent , the courtbegan b y observi ng that“ [t ] he key que s t i on of

s t atu t o ry cons truc t i on pr e s e nt e d . . . i s w he the r , unde rthe us e pr ong of § 1 9 5 8 , th e ph ra se ‘ i n i nt er st at e or f orei gn com m er ce ’ m od i fi es ‘ use’ or m od i fi es ‘f a c ility .’” 2 3 8 F .3 d a t 3 1 6 . T h e c o u r t h e ld th a t:

5 P ur e l y f r om a s truc tur a l vi e w poi nt , . . . “ i n i n t e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e ” i s a n a dj e c t i ve phr a s e tha tm odi fi e s “ f a c i l i ty , ” the noun thati m m edi at el y pre ce des i t-- no t an adverbi al ph ra se thatm od i fi es the sy nt ac t i ca l l y m ore r em ot e verb, “ [t o] use. ” W e s ee the form er c onc l us i on a s the m or e na tur a l a nd s e ns i bl e read i n g of the r e l e va nt p o r tio n o f

th e s ta tu te . P r im a r ily b e c a u s e o f t h e p r o x im ity o f “in i nt er st at e or f

orei gn com m er ce ” t o “ fa ci l i ty, ” t he w ord w hi ch that ph ra se m od i fi es i s f

ac i l i ty a nd no tuse. A con trary c on cl usi on -- that “ i n i nt er st at e or f

orei gn com m er ce ” m o d ifies “ use” -- w ou l d requi re a stra i ned structural i nt erpret at i on of the st atut e. I d . N ot abl y, the S eventh C i rc ui tre ce nt l y e xp re ss ed i t s a gree m entw i th M ar ek’ s par si ng of §

1 9 5 8 ( a ) , h o ld in g th a t:Ire c ognize , a s did t heMarek c ourt , th eF if

th C irc uit ’sho ldingin D up uy that th e“ in inters tate 6 commerc e”/“ of interstatecommerc e” distinction is a meaning ful one when comparing the jurisdictional elements of the Securities Act of 1933 a nd the Securities Ex chang e Ac t of 1934. See Marek, 238 F .3d at 319 n.44 (c iting Dupuy, 511 F.2d at 642-43). Indeed, my view re g arding the appropriate reconc iliation of § 1958(a) a nd (b)( 2) does not imply

that “that similarly

vary ing phrase ology

never can ha ve statutory

signific ance .” I d. Rather, it is only to say that “base d on thegra mmatic al struc tureof

§ 1 95 8 a nd theus eof

bo th p hra se s intercha

ng e a bly in t hestatut e and its leg islative history , . . . Congress’s par ticular deploy

ment of these two prepositions in § 1958 is not dispos itive of this case.”I d. 50 W e be l i e ve the r e i s onl y o n e w ay t o r e a d the pl a i n l a ngua ge of the m ur de r - f or - hi r e s t atut e , a nd tha ti s t o r e qui r e tha tthe f a c i l i ty , a nd not its u s e , b e in in te r s ta te o rf o r e ig n c o m m e r c e . W e w h o lly a g r e e w ith th e F i fth C i rcu i t th at § 1 9 5 8 ’ s co n stru ct i o n , p l ai n l an g u ag e, co n t ex t in th e r e a lm o f

c o m m e r c e c la u s e ju r is p ru d e n c e , a n d le g is la tiv e h is to ry a ll l e ad t o the c onc l us i on tha t“ i ti s s uf f i c i e nt[ unde r§ 1958] tha tthe d e f e n d a n t u s e d a n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e f a c ility i n a n in tr a s ta te fa shi on. ” M a r e k, 23 8 F. 3d a t 31 5. Thi s r e a di ng of the s t a tut e m akes s e ns e f r om both a l ogi c a l a nd l e ga l s t a ndp o i nt ; a s not e d i n M a r e k, e v e n th e t i t le o f

th e s ta tu te , “U s e o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e f

a c ilitie s in the co m m issi on of m urder- for- hi re , ” s ho w s thatC on gres s i nt ended “ i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ” t o m odi f y “ f a c i l i ty ” a nd not“ us e . ” I d. [ ] a t321.

R i c he s on, __ F . 3d a t__. I nde e d, i tm a ke s f a rm or e s e ns e a s a l i ngui s t i c m a t t e rf or th e p h rase “i n i n t erst at e co m m erce” to m o d i fy th e n o u n “ faci l i ty. ” H ad i tb een so in c lin e d , C o n g r e s s c o u ld e a s ily h a v e d r a f te d § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) to p r o h ib it “th e u s e in i n t erst at e co m m erce o f [certai n ] faci l i t i es. ” B u tth ati s n o tth e w ay § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) read s. T hus , i n my v i e w , th e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f th i s s e c t i o n i n d i c a t e s th a t s o l o n g a s t he f a c i l i ty i n que s t i o n i s one i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , i . e . , i s a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce , even i t s purel y i ntra st at e use confers j uri sdi ct i on un der § 19 58 (a ). 6Thus, when read tog ether with its prefac e, § 1958(b) (2) reads: “As used in this section . . . 7 ‘facility of interstatecommerc e’ inc ludes means of transportation and communication.” 51 S ec on d, by stra i ni ng t o aff ord t he w ords “ i n” and “ of” di st i nctm ea ni ng s, the m aj ori ty has r e a d the pr e f

a c e t o § 1958( b) a nd a n e nt i r e s ubs e c t i on - - § 1958( b )(2 ) -- o u t of the s t a tut e c ompl e t e l y . The pr e f a c e t o § 19 58 ( b) r e a ds : “ [ a ] s us e d i n thi s s e c t i on . . . --

. ” B y hol di ng tha tthe phr a s e “ f a c i l i ty i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m erce,” a s us e d i n § 7 1 9 5 8 ( a ) , is m e a n in g f u lly d if f e r e n t f r o m th e p h r a s e “f

a c ility o f

in te r s ta te c om m e r c e , ” a s us e d i n 1 9 5 8 (b )(2) , the m a j or i ty ha s r e nde r e d nuga t or y the l angu age “ [a ] s use d i n thi s s ec t i on . ” I nd ee d, th e o n ly w ay t o p l ausi bl y i nt erpret C o n g r e s s ’s e x p r e s s s ta te m e n t t h a t t h e p h r a s e “f a c ility o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” is u sed i n § 1 9 5 8 (a) i s t o co n stru e th atp h rase as sy n o n y m o u s w i th th e p h rase

“ f a c i l i ty i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , ” w hi c h i s the l a ngua ge a c tua l l y c ont a i ne d i n § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) . A s f or § 1 95 8(b)(2), agai n, thi s s ub se ct i on prov i des that“ ‘ fa ci l i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce ’ i nc l udes m ean s of

tr a ns por t a t i on a nd c om m uni c a t i on. ” H ow e ve r , i f “ f a c i l i t i e s of i nt er st at e c om m er ce” ar e notthe sa m e a s “ fa ci l i t i es i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce , ” § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) d e f

i n e s a n o n - e x is te n t te r m a n d a s s u c h is a f u n c tio n a l n u llity . T h u s , in e s pous i ng thi s r e a di ng, the m a j or i ty ha s e gr e gi ous l y c ontrav en ed a n i m por t a nt c a n o n o f s ta tu to ry in te rp r e ta tio n to w h ic h it c la im s to a d h e r e , i.e ., th a t a ll w o r d s inIndeed, theessentially incidental interstatemovement of Dr ury ’s ce llular telephonesignal was 8 about as minimal as possible. His call orig inated in Georg ia and wa s rec eived in Ge org ia as well; it is m ere ly

that duringthe intervening se conds, the signal from Dr ury ’s phone - - unbeknownst to appe llant -- wa s momentarily routed through a switchingstation in J acksonville, Florida . I f this interstate movement satisfies § 1958(a) , then any movement ac ross state lines will confer

jurisdiction under this section. 52 a s t a tut e m us t , t o the e xt e ntpos s i b l e, be a f f or de d i nde pe nde ntm e a ni ng a nd s ig n if ic a n c e . M y c o lle a g u e s a tte m p t to a v o id th is b a s ic p r o b le m s im p ly b y s a y in g th a t th e p h r a s e “f a c ility of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , ” a s s e tf or th i n § 1958( b) ( 2) , m e r e l y pro v i d es e xa m pl e s of f a c ilitie s “th a t m u s t b e u s e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e to s a t i s f y § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) .” H ow ever , thi s a rgum enti s im p l ausi bl e. If the ph ra se “ i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce , ” a s us e d i n § 195 8 (a), m o d i fi e s the ve rb “ us e s , ” a s the m a j or i ty s a y s i tdoe s , the noun

“ fa ci l i ty ” i s un modi f

i e d. A ny f

a c i l i ty - - w he the r or no t i t i s on e ty pi c a l l y deem ed a n in s tru m e n t a l i t y o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , s u c h a s a te le p h o n e - - is s u f f ic ie n t to co n fer j u ri sd i ct i o n u n d er § 1 9 5 8 (a) so l o n g as i ti s u sed t o actu al l y cro ss st at e l i n es. I a gr e e tha tthe phy s i c a l c r os s i ng of s t a t e bor de r s , w he the rby the de f e nda ntpe r s ona l l y or s ome pr oc e s s tha the s e t s i n mot i on ( l i ke a t e l e ph on e c a l l orthe ma i l i ng of a l e t t er ), pl ai nl y sa t i sf

i es § 195 8(a) ’ s j uri sdi ct i on al re qu i re m ent . H ow ever , i f t h e a ctual c r os s i n g o f st at e bor de r s i s the onl y w a y t o c onf e rj ur i s di c t i on unde rthi s s e c t i on, th en i n l i st i n g 2 typ e s o f f a c ili t i es th at , i f u sed t o cro ss st at e b o rd ers, w i l l sat i sfy § 1958( a ) ’ s j ur i s di c t i ona l r e qui r e m e nt , § 1958( b) ( 2) doe s a bs ol ut e l y no w or k. P ut di f f e r e nt l y , the ma

j or i ty r e a ds § 1 95 8( a ) t o s a y tha ta ny ( a nd on l y the ) a c tual 853

cr ossi ng of st at e borders i s s uffi ci entt o i nv ok e § 19 58 (a ). T hi s broad, general p r o p o s itio n n e c e s s a r i l y s u b s u m e s w ith in it th e id e a th a t a n y p a r tic u la rin te r s ta te m ove m e nt , f

ore xa m pl e , the i nt e r s t a t e us e of a m e a ns of

c om m uni c a t i on or tran sp o r ta ti o n , i s s u ff

icien t t o in v o k e § 1 9 5 8 (a ). T h u s, u n d erth e m ajo rity’s r e a di ng, the l a ngua ge of § 1958( b) ( 2) a c c om pl i s he s a bs ol ut e l y nothi ng. M oreover, I f

i nd i tevi dentthat§ 1 95 8(b)(2) i s s tructural l y hou se d i n a defi ni t i on al -- no tan e xe m pl a ry - - s ubs e c t i on of the st atu t e , i . e . , § 1958( b) . I nde e d, § 1958( b) ( 1) u n q u e s tio n a b ly d e f

in e s th e p h r a s e “a n y th in g o f p e c u n ia ry v a lu e ,” a n d , e q u a lly p l ai n l y, § 1 9 5 8 (b )(3 ) d efi n es th e t erm “ S t at e. ” T h e f a c t th at§ 1 9 5 8 (b )(3 ) d o es so by us i ng the t e r m “ i nc l ude s ” i n st e a d of “ m e a ns ” - - c om pa r e § 1958( b) ( 1) ( “‘a n y th in g o f

p e c u n ia ry v a lu e ’ m e a n s a n y t h i n g o f v a lu e in th e f

o r m o f m o n e y , a nego t i abl e i nstrum ent , a c om m er ci al i nt er es t , or anythi ng el se the pri m ary si gn i fi ca nce of w hi ch i s e cono m i c a dv ant age” w ith § 1 95 8(b)(3) (“ S t at e” i ncl ud es a S t a t e of

the U ni t ed S t at e s , the D i s tr i c tof C ol um bi a , a nd a ny c om m onw e a l th, t erri t ory , or pos s e s s i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s ” ) - - doe s not r e nde r i tan y l ess de f i ni t i on a l . Th u s , th e f

a c tth a t§ 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) a l s o u s e s th e t e r m “ i n c l u d e s ” d o e s not ren d er th atsu b sect i o n ex em p l ary. N otsurpri si ng l y, the m aj ori ty c i t es no autho ri ty f or i t s r ec on ci l i at i on of § 1 95 8(a) and (b)(2). T hi s i s nott o di s put e the i rr e c ogni t i on tha t§ 1958( a) an d ( b) ( 2) us e di f f e r e nt la n g u a g e , o rto s a y th a t th e s e s u b s e c tio n s n e e d n o t b e r e c o n c ile d . R a th e r , it is54

m e r e l y t o s a y tha tthe r e c onc i l i at i o n tha tdoe s the l e a s tda m a ge t o the l a ngua ge e na c t e d by C ongr e ss -- a nd a f f or ds the m a xi m um a m ountof c r e de nc e t o the c a non th a t a ll w o r d s in a s ta tu te s h o u ld b e g iv e n e f f e c t - - is to r e a d “f

a c ilitie s o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” a s b e in g s y n o n y m o u s w ith “f a c ilitie s in in te r s t a t e c o m m e r c e .” A lth o u g h th is m a y d e p r iv e th e w o r d “o f ” o f s o m e i n d e p e n d e n t s ig n if ic a n c e , th is r e a di ng i s f

a rl e s s da m a gi ng t o § 1958’ s s t a tut ory s c he m e tha n i s the r e a di ng e n d o r s e d b y th e m a

jo r ity , a n d th e a tte n d a n t n u llif ic a tio n o f

§ 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) in its e n tir e ty . T h ir d , a s th e M a r e k c o u r t n o te d , in 1 9 9 0 C o n g r e s s e n a c te d a n a m e n d m e n t to th e T r a v e l A c t,

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 2 - - o f

w h ic h s e c t i o n 1 9 5 8 ’s m u r d e r - f o r - h ir e p r o h ib itio n o r ig in a lly w a s a pa r t- - c l a r i fyi n g tha tthe pur e l y i ntr a s t a t e us e of a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of in t erst at e co m m erce i s su ffi ci en tt o sat i sfy th atsect i o n ’ s j u ri sd i ct i o n al req u i re m e n t. S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a ke r , 82 F . 3d 2 7 3 , 275- 76 ( 8 C i r . 1996) ( uphol di ng a th c o n v ic tio n u n d e r§ 1 9 5 2 ( a ) b a s e d o n a n e x to r tio n v ic tim ’s u s e o f a n a u to m a tic t e l l e rm a c h i n e th a t“ tr i g g e r e d a n e n t i r e l y i n tr a s t a t e e l e c tr o n i c tr a n s f e r ” b e t we e n two lo c a l b a n k s , b e c a u s e in te r s ta te n e tw o rk o f A T M s is a f

a c ility in in te r s ta te c om m e r c e ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e a c oc k, 31 F . 3d 249, 255 ( 5 C i r. 1994) ( hol di ng th th a t “w h e n e v e ra p e r s o n u s e s th e U n ite d S ta te s P o s t O f f ic e to d e p o s it, to tr a n s p o r t, a nd t o de l i ve rpa r c e l s , m one y , orothe rm a t e r i a l by m e a ns of the m ai l , tha tpe r s on c l e a r l y a nd unm i s t a ka bl y ha s us e d a ‘ f a c i l i ty i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , ’ i rr e s pe c t i ve55

o f th e i n trast at e d est i n at i o n o f th e i t em m ai l ed , ” an d th atsu ch i n trast at e u se sat i sfi es th e j u ri sd i ct i o n al req u i rem en t o f th e T rav el A ct ). N o t a b ly , to a cco m p l i sh thi s c l a r i f

i c a t i on C ongr e s s c ha nge d the l a ngua ge of § 1952 t o m i rr orthe l a ngua ge now f ound i n § 1958( a ) , t a r ge t i ng “ [w ] h o ev e rtr a ve l s i n i nt e r s t a t e orf or e i gn c om m e r c e orus e s the m a i l ora ny f a c i l i ty i n i nt e r s t a t e orf orei g n co m m erc e . ” 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 2(a) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). B as ed on thi s hi st ory, th e M ar ek court c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ a ]s C o n g r e s s th u s e x p r e s s ly m a d e c le a rth a t § 1 9 5 2 ap p lie s to in tr a s ta te m a ilin g s , a n d d id s o b y im p o r tin g § 1 9 5 8 ’s w o r d in g in to § 1 9 5 2 , lo g ic d ic ta te s th a t p r e c is e ly th e s a m e w o r d in g in § 1 9 5 8 m u s t ap p ly e q u a lly to in tr a s ta te use of other i nt er st at e f ac il it ies, such as W es t ern U ni on . ” 238 F . 3d at31 7. I a gree f ul l y w i th th i s r e a s o n i n g ; Co n g r e s s ’ s c l a r i f i c a t i o n th a t th e p u r e l y i n tr a s t a t e us e of a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e f a l l s w i thi n the a m bi tof § 1952( a ) by a dopt i ng the pr e c i s e w or di ng us e d i n § 195 8 ( a ) s tr ongl y c ouns e l s i n f a vorof r e a d in g § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) to r e a c h s u c h p u r e ly in tr a s ta te a c tiv itie s a s w e ll. F i na l l y , t o hol d tha t§ 1958( a ) c onf e r s j ur i s di c t i on ove ronl y m ur de r - f or - hi r e c a s e s i nvol vi ng the a c tua l c r os s i ng of

s t a t e l i ne s i s i n co n si st entw i th C ongr e s s ’ s de s i r e t o pr ovi de br oa d, c onc urr e ntf

e de r a l j ur i s di c t i on ove rc a s e s of thi s ty pe . S e e M a r e k, 238 F . 3d a t 3 2 3 . T h e S e n a te r e p o r t th a t a c c o m p a n ie d th e e n a c tm e n t o f § 1 9 5 8 e x p lic itly s e ts f o r th th is le g is la tiv e p u rp o s e :56

[ T ]h e c o m m itte e is a w a r e o f t h e c o n c e rn s o f lo c a l p r o s e c u to r s w ith re spec tt o the cr ea t i on of concurrentfe dera l j uri sdi ct i on i n an area , nam el y m u r de rc a s e s , w hi c h ha s he r e t of or e be e n the a l m os te xc l us i ve re spon si bi l i ty of s t at e a nd l ocal autho ri t i es . [H ] ow ever , the com m i tt ee b el i ev e s tha tthe opt i on of f e de r a l i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr os e c ut i on sh ou l d b e a vai l abl e w hen a m urder i s c om m i tt ed or pl anned as co ns i de r a t i on f

ors ome thi ng of

pe c un i a ry va l ue a nd the pr op e rf e de r al n e x u s, su ch as i n t erst at e trav el , u se o f th e faci l i t i es o f i n t er s ta te c o m m e r c e , o ru s e o f

th e m a ils , is p r e s e n t. S . R ep . 98 - 22 5, pt . 7, a t30 4- 05 ( 19 83 ) , 19 84 U . S. C. C. A . N . 31 82 , 34 84 . To sa y th a t c o n c u rr e n t ju r is d ic tio n d o e s n o t e x is t u n le s s th e s c h e m e in q u e s tio n a c tu a lly c r o s s e s s ta te lin e s , a n d th u s th a t C o n g r e s s o p te d n o t to e x e r c is e th e f u ll e x te n t o f

its C om m er ce po w er -- i nd ee d, even the m aj ori ty do es no t sa y that C on g re ss la cked the a uthor i ty t o i nc l ude w i thi n § 1958( a ) ’ s s c o p e t h e i ntr a s t a t e us e of the i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e - - i s f a c i a l l y i nc ons i s t e ntw i th the l e gi s l a tur e ’ s de s i r e t o pr ovi de the opt i on of f e de r a l pr os e c ut i on w he ne ve r“ the p r o p e rf e d e r a l n e x u s ” is p r e s e n t. M o r e o v e r , a s w e d is c u s s m o r e f u lly in f r a , § 19 58 ’ s legi sl at i ve hi st ory s trong l y s ug gest s thatC on gres s r ec og ni ze d three di st i nct

“ pr ope rf

e de r a l ne xus [es] , ” na m e l y , “ i nt e r s t a t e tr a ve l , us e of the f a c i l i t i e s of i nt er st at e c om m er ce , or use of the m ai l s. ” I d. (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T hus , I be l i e ve tha tthe phr a s e “ i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , ” a s us e d i n § 1958( a ) , s houl d be

r e a d to m o d if

y th e n o u n “f

a c ility ” a s o p p o s e d to th e v e rb “u s e s ,” a n d is sy no nym ou s w i th the ph ra se “ of i nt er st at e c om m er ce , ” a s use d i n § 19 58 (b)( 2). T h e p r o d u c t o f

th is r e a d in g i s t h a t t h e p u r e ly in tr a s ta te u s e o f a f a c ility in ( i.e .,57

i nstrum ent al i ty of) i nt er st at e c om m er ce confers j uri sdi ct i on un der § 19 58 (a ). I nde e d, § 1958 pr ovi de s a c l a s s i c e xa m pl e of C ongr e s s r e gul a t i ng the i ns trume nt a l i t i e s of

i nt e r s t a t e c omme r c e . A s the M a r e k c ou r tpu ti t , “ [ w ] hen C on gres s r egul at es and p rot ec t s und er the se cond L op ez ca t egory . . . fe dera l j ur i s di c t i on i s s uppl i e d by the na tur e of the i ns trum e nt a l i t y orf a c i l i ty us e d, notby se para t e proof of i nt er st ate m ov em ent . ” 238 F . 3d at31 7. H er e, the proo fs i nt r odu c e d a t tr i a l e s t a b l i s h th a t D ru ry u s e d a c e l l u l a r t e l e p h o n e t o c o n t a c t a pe r s on w ho m he bel i eved t o be a hi tm an i n a n a tt em pt t o a rr ange the m urde r o f h is w i fe . T h is , s ta n d i n g a lo n e , is s u f f ic ie n t to c o n f

e rf e d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r§ 1 9 5 8 ( a ) .

N on e of the ar gu m ent s r ai se d b y m y c ol l ea gu es i n sup po rtof thei r c on tra ry ho l di ng ar e pe rs uasi ve. F i rs t , as expl ai ned abo ve, the m aj ori ty’ s l i ng ui st i c par si ng of § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) ’s p h r a s e “u s e s . . . a n y f a c ility in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” - - a n d s p e c if ic a lly i t s con c l us i on tha tthe ph r a s e “ i n i nt e r s t a t e c omme r c e ” modi f i e s the ve rb “ us e s ” -- m i s s e s the m a r k. S eco n d , I f i nd e s pe c i a l l y unpe r s ua s i ve the m a j or i ty ’ s r e l i a nc e on the m axi m thatal l w ords i n a st atut e m ust , t o the ex t entpo ss i bl e, be gi ven i nd ependentm ea ni ng . A l tho ug h I ful l y a gree w i th thi s ru le as a cano n o f s t atut ory in te rp r e ta tio n , th e m a

jo r ity , a s I h a v e e x p la in e d , h a s d ir e c tly u n d e r m in e d th is58

m a x i m b y r e a d in g th e p r e f a c e to § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) a n d § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) o u t o f th e s ta tu te c o m p le te ly . T hi r d, the m a

j or i ty a tt e m pt s t o s uppor ti t s r e a di ng of § 1958 by i nvoki ng the c l e a rs t a t e m e nt rul e , i . e . , the pr i nc i pl e t h at C ongr e s s m us tc l e a r l y i ndi c a t e i t s de s i r e t o de pr i ve the s t a t e s o f d o m i n i o n o v e rm a tt e r s tr a d i t i o n a l l y wi th i n th e i rl e g i s l a t i v e p u r v i e w. S e e H i l t on v. S . C . P ub. R y s . C om m ’ n, 502 U . S . 197, 209, 112 S . C t . 560, 567- 68, 116 L . Ed . 2 d 5 6 0 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( “ [ W ] e h a v e b e e n w a ry o f e x t e n d i n g th e e f f e c tof co n g ressi o n al en actm en t s i n t o areas trad i t i o n al l y g o v ern ed b y th e S ta te s , u n l ess C o n g r e s s h a s d ir e c te d u s to d o s o b y a n u n m is ta k a b ly c l e a r s t a t e m e n t. I n d e e d , in th e c a s e s in w h ic h w e h a v e e m p lo y e d th e c le a r s ta te m e n t ru le o u ts id e t h e E l e v e n th A m e n d m e n t c o n te x t, w e h a v e r e c o g n iz e d t h e r u le ’s c o n s titu tio n a l d im e n s io n s .” ( c i t i ng G r e gory v. A s hc r of t , 501 U . S . 452, 461 , 111 S . C t . 2395, 2401, 115 L . E d. 2 d 4 1 0 ( 1 9 9 1 ) a n d W i l l v . M i c h i g a n D e p ’ to f St a t e Po l i c e , 4 9 1 U . S. 5 8 , 65, 10 9 S. C t . 2304, 2 3 0 9 , 1 0 5 L. Ed . 2 d 4 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ) a n d U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ba s s , 4 0 4 U . S . 336, 34 9, 92 S . C t . 51 5, 52 3 , 3 0 L . E d. 2d 48 8 (19 71 )) ). T he si m pl e r es po nse i s that C o n g r e s s h a s n o t tru ly d e p r i v e d t h e s ta te s o f a n y th in g . T h e r e is n o t a s in g le m ur de r - f or - hi r e c a s e tha ti s r e m ove d fro m the j ur i s di c t i on of the s t a t e s by § 1958. Inst ea d, thi s s ec t i on m er el y provi des c on curr en t f eder al j uri sdi ct i on ov erm urderf or - hi r e s c he m e s tha tc a n be br oughtt o be a ri n c a s e s w he r e the r e s our c e s of the59

f e de r a l gove rnm e ntm a y be ne e de d. A s i ndi c a t e d i n the l e gi s l a t i v e h i st ory c i t e d by th e m a jo r ity , C o n g r e s s d id n o t in te n d th a t al l or even m ost[m urders -f or-hi re ] sh o u l d b ec om e m att er s of f eder al re spon si bi l i ty. R ather, fe dera l j uri sdict i on shou l d b e a ss ert ed s e le c tiv e ly b a s e d o n s u c h f a c to r s a s t h e t y p e o f

d e f e n d a n ts r e a s o n a b ly b e lie v e d to b e in v o lv e d a n d th e r e la tiv e a b ility o f th e f e d e r a l a n d s ta te a u th o r i t i e s t o i n v e s t i g a t e a n d p r o s e c u t e . . . . Co o p e r a t i on a nd c o o r d in a tio n b e tw e e n f e d e r a l a n d s ta te o f

f ic ia ls s h o u ld b e u t i l iz d to e n s u r e th a t th e n e w m u r d e r - f o r - h ir e s ta tu te is u s e d in ap p r o p r ia te c a s e s t o a s s i s tthe s t a t e s r at h er t ha n t o a l l ow the us urpa t i on of s i gni fi can t c a s e s by f

e de r a l a uthor i t i e s tha tc oul d be ha ndl e d a s w e l l or b e tte ra t th e lo c a l le v e l. S . R ep . 98- 225, pt . 7, a t305 ( 1983) , 1984 U . S . C . C . A . N . 3182, 3484. A c c or di ngl y, the f e de r a l i s m - ba s e d c onc e rns of m y c ol l e a gue s a r e l a r ge l y unf ounde d. S i m i l ar l y unp er suas i ve i s the m aj ori ty’ s i nv ocat i on of the rul e of l eni ty. A s m y c ol l ea gu es

reco g n i ze, o n e o f th e i m p o rt an tp ri n ci p l es u n d erg i rd i n g th is r u le i s th atfai rn ess, equi ty and due proces s di ct at e that a cr i m i nal l aw m ust pu t the defe nd ant on n o ti ce th a ta g i v e n a c t i o n i s p r o h i b i t e d . I f a de f e nda ntc a n n o td e t e r mi n e w i th s o me m e a s ur e of

c e rt ai n t y t h ats t a tut e X pr ohi bi t s a c tY , the s t a tut e s houl d notbe c ons true d t o e nc om pa s s a c tY . H e r e , the m a j or i ty s a y s tha t“ [ a ] ppl i e d t o § 1958, th is r u l e i n s tru c ts th a t § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) ’s ju r is d ic tio n a l e le m e n t s h o u ld b e in te rp r e te d to in c lu d e o n ly th e u s e o f

f a c ilitie s th a t a r e a c tu a lly e n g a g e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ,” i. e., fac il it ies th at ar e u se d to cr o ss state lin es . Y et u n d erth e m ajo rity’s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

§ 1958, t o k n o w w he the rhi s a c t i ons w e r e pr ohi bi t e d unde rthe60

f e de r a l m ur de r - f

or - hi r e s t a tut e , D rury w oul d ha ve t o know the pr e c i s e r out e of the si gn al fr om the ce l l ul art el epho ne ca l l s he m ade i n furthe ra n ce o f hi s hom i ci dal s c h e m e . N o t o n ly is t h e r e n o e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d th a t D ru ry k n e w th a t h is c a lls w e r e r o u te d th r o u g h a s w itc h in g s ta tio n in F lo r id a , b u t m o r e g e n e r a lly , th is p la in ly is n o t a m a t t e r o f

w h ic h m o s t d e f

e n d a n ts w h o a r e n o t te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e x p e r ts a r e l i ke l y t o be a w a r e . T hus , a s i s vi v i dl y i l l us tr a t e d by the f a c t s of thi s c a s e , the m a j or i ty ’ s r e a di ng of § 1958 unde r m i ne s the f a i rne s s pr i nc i pl e unde rpi nni n g the ru le o f len ity. M o re fu n d am e n ta ll y , it is d ifficu ltto ac ce p t th e m ajo rity’s i m pl i ca t i o n thatD rury coul d p ossi bl y have bel i eved thatthe re t ent i on of a hi tm an t o m ur de rhi s w i f

e w a s notl e ga l l y pr ohi bi t e d. F in a lly , a s I v ie w th e m , n e ith e ro f th e le g is la tiv e r e p o r ts c ite d b y m y c o lle a g u e s a c tu a lly s u p p o r ts th e irc o n c lu s io n th a t o n ly th e u s e o f a f a c ility to c r o s s s ta te lin e s is ac t i on abl e und erthi s se ctio n . T he S enat e r eportdi sc usse d b y the m aj ori ty s ay s that

“ [ t ] he t e r m ‘ f

a c i l i ty of i nt e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e ’ i s . . . de f i ne d t o i nc l ude m e a ns of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d c o mmu n i c a t i o n . Th u s , a n i n t e r s t a t e t e l e p h o n e c a l l i s s u f f i c i e nt t o tr i gge r fede r a l j ur i s di c t i on. ” S . R e p. 98- 225, pt . 7 a t306 ( 1983) , 1984 U . S . C . C . A . N . 31 82 , 34 85 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). U nd erth e m aj ori ty’ s r ea di ng of § 19 58 , ho w ever , thi s c o u ld no tbe. T he ph ra se “ fa ci l i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce ” ap p e a r s o n ly in § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) , w h ic h is n o t th e s u b s ta n tiv e , i . e ., ju r is d ic tio n a l, po rt i on of the st atut e. Inst ea d, ac co rd in g to the m aj ori ty, thatse ct i on i s e xem pl ary61

onl y . H ow e ve r , by sayi n g tha tthe l a ngua ge of § 1958( b) ( 2) i s j ur i s di c t i onc o n f e rr in g , th is S e n a t e r e p o r t p la in ly in d ic a te s th a t § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) a u th o r ita tiv e ly d e f in e s th e s u b s ta n tiv e p r o h ib itio n f o u n d in § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) , th e r e b y n e c e s s a r ily r e nde r i ng “ f

a c i l i t i e s i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ” s y nony m ous w i th “ f a c i l i t i e s of i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” I n a s i m i l a rve i n, the s a m e S e na t e r e por ts a y s tha t“ the opt i on of f e de r a l i nve s t i ga t i on a nd pr os e c ut i on s houl d be a va i l a bl e w he n a m ur de ri s c om m i tt e d orpl a nne d . . . a nd th e p r o p e rf

e d e r a l n e x u s , s u c h a s in te r s ta te tr a v e l, u s e o f th e f a c ilitie s o f

in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , o r u s e o f

th e m a ils is p r e s e n t.” I d . a t 3 0 5 , 3 4 8 4 ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h is sa ys i tabou tas cl ea rl y as p o ss i bl e: the use of f ac i l i t i es of i nt er st at e c om m er ce w as v ie w e d b y th e d r a f

te r s o f th e f e d e r a l m u r d e r - f

o r - h ir e s ta tu te a s o n e w h o lly in d e p e n d e n t b a s is f

o rf e d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n . T h is a ls o s tr o n g ly im p lie s th a t th e r e is no subst ant i ve d iffe re n ce betw ee n the “ fa ci l i t i es of i nt er st at e c om m er ce ” t o w hi ch th e r e p o r t r e f

e r s a n d “f

a c ilitie s in i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e ,” th e u s e o f w h ic h in fu rth eran ce o f a m u rd e r -fo r-h i re sch em e i s p ro h i b i t ed u n d er § 1 9 5 8 (a). N o t ab l y, th e S e n a te r e p o r t e x p lic itly d is tin g u is h e s th e u s e o f s u c h f a c ilitie s f

r o m in te r s ta te tr a v e l, th e r e b y in d ic a t i n g t h a tth e p u r e ly in tr a s ta te u s e o f th e f a c ilitie s , i.e ., i ns trum e nt a l i t i e s , of

( ori n) i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e i s s uf f i c i e ntt o c onf

e rj ur i s di c t i on u n d e r§ 1 9 5 8 ( a ) .62 S i m i l arl y, th e H o u se rep o rtth atatt en d ed th e i n tro d u ct i o n o f th e T rav el A ctex p l i ci t l y says

that“ [t ] he i nt er st at e t ent ac l es of thi s oct op us k n o w n as ‘ organi ze d cri m e’ . . . ca n o n ly b e c u t b y m a k in g it a F e d e r a l o f f e n s e to u s e th e f

a c i l i t i e s o f

in te r s ta te c om m e r c e i n the c a rry i ng on of [ c e r t a i n] ne f

a r i ous a c t i vi t i e s [ i nc l udi ng c r i m e s of vi ol e nc e ] . ” H . R . R e p. N o. 87- 966 ( 1961) , rep ri n t ed i n 1961 U . S . C . C . A . N . 2664, 26 65 (e m ph as i s a dd ed). T hi s pl ai nl y i nd i ca t es thatthe dr af t er s of w hatbeca m e § 1 9 5 8 w an t ed t o m ak e i l l eg al th e u se o f “ faci l i t i es o f i n t erst at e co m m e r c e ” to com m i tcr i m es of vi ol ence . T hat th e s ub st ant i ve proh i bi t i on i n the fe dera l m urderfor- hi re st atut e, § 1 95 8(a) cont ai ns the l angu age “ fa cili t i es i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce ” strong l y s ug gest s thatthese ph ra se s w er e v ie w ed by the T ra vel A ct ’ s dra ft er s a s i nt e r c ha nge a bl e . T o co n cl u d e othe rw i s e r e qui r e s notonl y the a s s um pt i on tha tthe d raft ers o f th e T rav el A c t v ie w e d th ese p h rases as su b st an t i v el y d i st i n ct , b u tal so tha tf ol l ow i ng the pr om ul ga t i on of H . R . 87- 966 , the dr a f

t e r s c ha nge d the i rm i nds and d ec i ded t hati tw as no tthe use of f ac i l i t i es of i nt er st at e c om m er ce , bu tra ther the us e of

f a c i l i t i e s i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , tha tw a s pr obl e m a t i c a nd s houl d be p ro h i b i t e d unde rf

e de r a l l a w . U ns urpr i s i ngl y , the r e i s a bs ol ut e l y no s uppor ti n § 1958’ s l e gi s l a t i ve hi s t ory f orthe not i on tha ts uc h a l e gi s l a t i ve a bout - f a c e oc c ur r e d. T h e s a m e H o u s e r e p o r t la te rs a y s th a t th e T r a v e l A c t p r o h ib its n o t o n ly a c tu a l in te r s ta te

tr a ve l i n f

ur the r a nc e of

c e r t a i n a c t i vi t i e s , i nc l udi ng the c om m i s s i on of a cri m e of v i o l en ce, b u t“ [i ] tal so p ro h i b i t s th e u se o f o th er i n t erst at e tran sp o rt at i o n faci liti es,63

i ncl ud i ng the m ai l , un der the sa m e r eq u ir em ent s . . . w i th regard t o tra vel . ” I d. at 2 6 6 6 (em p h asi s ad d ed ). T h e rep o rtn ev er says th atth e u se o f su ch faci l i t i es m u st b e o f a n in te rst at e n atu re. In d eed , i t says si m p l y th at th e m ere u se o f th e m ai l to c om m i ta c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o c onf

e rT r a ve l A c tj ur i s di c t i on. I c a nnot s ee h o w the m a

j or i ty i nt e rpr e t s thi s r e por tt o s upportthe c onc l us i on tha tthe us e of the m ai l (or, b y nec es sa ry i m pl i ca t i on , a t el epho ne) i s i nsuffi ci ent , st andi ng al on e, to c o n f e rju r is d ic tio n u n d e r§ 1 9 5 8 . A s a c o r o lla ry to m y c o n v ic tio n th a t th e in tr a s ta te u s e o f a n in s tru m e n ta lity o f

in te r s ta te com m er ce su ch as a t el epho ne sa t i sf i es § 1 95 8’ s j uri sdi ct i on al nexu s, I bel i eve that the di stri ctcourtdi d n ot er r u n d erU ni t ed S t at es v. G audi n b y i nstruct i ng the j ury thata pay or ce l l ul arph on e i s aper s e f ac i l i ty i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . In G audi n, the C ou rtre af fi rm ed thatthe F i fth and S i xth A m endm ent s r equi re that“ cr i m i nal conv i ct i on s . . . re stup on a j ury det erm i nat i on that th e d ef en danti s gui l ty of e very e l e m e ntof

the c r i m e w i th w hi c h he i s c ha r ge d, be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubt . ” 515 U .S . a t 5 1 0 , 1 1 5 S . C t . a t 2 3 1 3 . T h e is s u e in th a t c a s e w a s w h e th e rth e m a te r ia lity of a f a l s e s t a t e m en t o n a fed era l l oa n appl i c a t i on w a s a n e l e m e ntof a vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1001 tha tne e de d t o be f ound by a j ury . I n hol di ng tha ti tw a s , the C ou rtsa i d thatm at er i al i ty i s acl as si c m i xed q uest i on of l aw and fact , and as s uch i s pr ope r l y r e s ol ve d by a j ury . S e e i d. a t512- 14, 115 S . C t . a t2314- 15.In “L opez 3” ca ses, the cour ts of appeals generally

(but not always) havefound that the 9 requisite ef

fec t on interstate commerce is a n element of

the offense that, under

Gaudin, must be su bmitte d tothejur

y . F or e xamp le , in

Unite d St ate s v . V a sq

ue z, th eSe c on d Circuit

he ld t hat a jury charg e that heroin or coc aine tra ffickingnece ssarily aff ects interstate or foreign commerc e “may not pass muster” under Ga udin. 267 F.3d 79, 89 (2d Cir. 2001). A lthough the V asquez court said that prior to Gaudin its jurisprudencedeeme d jurisdictional questions such as whether thealle g e d c on du c t a ff

e c te d inters tatec omm e rc ea s b e ingprop e rly re so lve d b y

thec ourt , it rec ognized that these ac tually aremix ed questions of lawand fact that, under Gaudin, must be resolved by

a jury . We held simil arly in United States v. Castleberr y . See 116 F .3d 1384, 1389 (11 Cir. 1997) (“Ca stleberr y is corre ct that Gaudin require s a jury, and not a judg e, to deter mine th e a c h e le ment o f t

hec rimeto which h eis cha rg e d w ith . H ow e ver, Ca stl eberr y is s imp ly wron gin arguingthat th ejur

y in his c a sedid

no t de c idee a c h e le ment o f his H obbs Ac t c onvic tio ns . It is clea r to us that the jury

decide d the interstate c ommerceelement.” ). By contra st, in United St ates v. Gome z, an interstate ar son case , the district court instructed the jury

that to convict the def

endant it had to find “ [t ]hat on or about the date charg ed i nth e i n di ctm ent , th e b u i l di n g n am edi nth e i n di ctm entwa s u s edi ni nt er s t at e o r f o re i gn commerc e or in a

ny activity aff ectinginterstate or

fore ign c ommerce .” 87 F .3d 1093, 1097 (9 th Cir . 1 99 6) . Thedis tric t c ourt then d e fine d inters tatec omm e rc e , s aying : “ A b uil dingis u se d in interstate c ommerce , or any activity aff ectinginterstate c ommerce , if the building itself is used for a business or commercial purposeor if that building purchase s, sells, or uses g oods that orig inate d o r c amefrom out o f s tate . Are side nti al a pa rtment buil dingwi th m

ultipl erental units is a buildingin inters tatec omm e rc e .”I d. Th eNinth Circ uit a ff ir me d, re a so ningthat: We find that these instructions properly encompa ssed the jury ’s fact-findingrole. [The first] [ i] nstruction . . . require d the jury to find whether

the building damag ed or de stroyed wa s used in interstate c ommerce . [The second] [i ]nstruction . . . g ave theproper leg al test for determiningwhether a building a ff e c ts inters tatec omm e rc e . T og e ther t he seins tr uc tio ns re quire d th ejur

y to de terminewh e ther t

hebuildingwa s a

multi- unit re side nti al buildingthat w a s in use as a rental property

at the time of the charg ed incident, whic h is the proper fac tual inquiry . I f they

found that it was a rental property , then the instructions require d them to find that the interstate c ommerceelement of the offense wa s 64 T hi s, t o rei t er at e, i s a“ L op ez 2” ca se , because the go vernm entw as re qu i re d t o est abl i sh that

D rury “ us e [ d] . . . [ a ] f a c i l i ty i n i nt e r s t a t e o r fo rei gn c om m e r c e ” i n f ur the r a nc e of hi s m ur de r - f

or - h i r e s c h e me . 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 5 8 . By c o n tr a s t , th i s i s n o t a “ Lo p e z 3” c a s e , w he r e the r e qui s i t e c onne c t i o n t o i n t e r s t a t e c om m e r c e i s the e f f e c tof the defe nd ant ’ s a ct i on s on i nt er st ate com m er ce . In m y vi ew , thi s i s adi st i nct i on that 9satisfied. Theseinstructions corre ctly deleg ated the f

actual determination to the jury , leavingthe deter

mination of the leg al standard to the court. I d. 65 m a k e s a g r e a t d if

f e r e n c e . W h e r e a s th e im p a c t o f a d e f e n d a n t ’ s a c tio n s o n in te r s ta te com m er ce i s a n el em en t of off ense s r equi ri ng an ef

fe cton i nt er st at e c om m er ce , thi s i s notso i n cas es w here th e d ef en d antneed on l y use a f ac i l i ty i n (or of) i nt er st at e c om m er ce . Indeed, the l abel i ng of a gi ven faci l i ty a s one i n (or of) i n t erst at e c om m e r c e - - or , i n the t e r m s us e d by the s e c a s e s , a s a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e - - i s one tha tw e a nd othe rc our t s of ap p eal s p re vi ous l y ha ve c a t e gor i z e d a s pur e l y l e ga l . S e e S pi l ke rv. S hayn e L ab s. , Inc . , 520 F . 2d 523, 524 ( 9 C i r . 1975) ( “ T he onl y i s s ue i n thi s ap p eal i s a s i m pl e que s t i on of l a w : D oe s the th f a c t t h atthe de f

e nda nt s m a de tw o i ntr a s t a t e t e l e phone c a l l s c onne c t e d t o a s e c ur i t i e s tr a ns a c t i on s a t i s f y the j ur i s di c t i ona l r e qui r e m e ntof ‘ u se o f any m e a ns or i n stru m en t al i ty o f i n t erst at e co m m erce’ . . . . ”); D u p u y, 5 1 1 F . 2 d at6 4 1 ( “T h is appe a l pr e s e nt s a na rr ow q u est i o n of l a w - - D oe s the m a ki ng of i ntr a s t a t e t e l e phone c a lls s a tis f

y th e ju r is d ic tio n a l r e q u ir e m e n t o f ‘u s e o f a n y m e a n s o rin s tr u m e n t a l i ty o f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ’ f o u n d in s 1 0 o f

th e S e c u r itie s E x c h a n g e A c t o f 1 9 3 4 . . .

. ” ) ; C o p p P a vi ng C o. , I nc . v. G ul f O i l C orp. , 487 F . 2d 202, 204 ( 9 C i r . 1973) th (“ [T ] he prod uct i on o f as ph al tfor use i n i nt er st at e hi gh w ay s r endered the prod ucer s

‘ i n stru m en t al i t i es’ o f in te r s t at e co m m erce an d p l aced th em ‘ i n ’ th atco m m erce as a66

m a t t e r o f

l a w . ” ) , r e v ’ d o n o th e rg r o u n d s b y 4 1 9 U . S. 1 8 6 , 9 5 S. Ct . 3 9 2 , 4 2 l . E d. 2d 37 8 (19 74 ). I n s te a d , in c a s e s w h e r e th e g o v e rn m e n t m u s t e s tab lis h th a t th e d e f e n d a n t u s e d a f

a c ility in ( o ro f ) i n te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , th e e le m e n t o f th e o f f e n s e th a t m u s t b e s u b m itte d to th e ju r y is th e u s e o f

th a t f a c ility , n o t w h e th e rth e e le m e n t is “in ” o r“o f ” in te r s ta te c om m e r c e . T h u s, f

ore xa m pl e , w he r e a t e l e phone i s c onc e rne d, the j ury m us tf i nd b eyo n d a reaso n ab l e d o u b tth atth e t el ep h o n e w as u s e d , n o tth atth e t el ep h o n e i s a fa ci l i ty i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . In d ee d, t o m e i ti s har d t o i m agi ne thata j ury w ou l d b e f

re e t o fi nd thata t el epho ne i s nota f ac i l i ty i n ( o r o f) int er st at e c om m er ce w hi c h, f orthe r e a s ons s e tf

or th a bove , i s syn o n y m ous w i th a n i ns trum e nt a l i ty of in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . Y e t th e m a jo r ity o p in io n e f

f e c ti v e ly w o u ld a llo w o n e ju ry to concl ud e on M on day th at a t el epho ne i s a n i nstrum ent al i ty of i nt er st at e c om m er ce and ano ther j ury t o con cl ud e on T uesday , i n ano ther c as e, thata t el epho ne is n otan i n stru m en t al i ty o f i n t erst at e co m m erce. I fi n d i tw h o l l y i m p l a u s i b l e th atC o n g ress in te n d e d s u c h a r e s u lt. F u r th e r m o r e a n d q u ite im p o r ta n tly , in th is c a s e th e r e is a n e v e n m o r e c o m p e llin g r e a s o n to

sa y thatG audi n d oes notre qu i re the su bm i ss i on t o the j ury of the qu es t i on w hether D ru ry u s e d a f

a c ility in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . I n § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) , C o n g r e s s e x p r e s s ly and u nam bi gu ou sl y has defi ned t he ph ra se “ fa ci l i ty o f i nt er st at e c om m er ce ” - - w h ic h , f o r t h e r e a s o n s s e t f

o r th a b o v e , m u s t b e in te rp r e te d a s s y n o n y m o u s w ith67

“ f a c i l i ty i n i nt e rst a t e c om m e r c e ” - - t o i nc l ude “ m e a ns of tr a ns por t a t i on a nd c o m m u n ic a tio n .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 8 ( b ) ( 2 ) . A c c o r d in g ly , it i s s im p ly u n te n a b le to sa y thatthe sa t i sf

ac ti o n o f se ct i on 19 58 ’ s “ fa ci l i ty i n i nt er st at e . . . com m er ce ” re qu i re m ent-- as op po se d t o the re qu i re m entthatsuch a f ac i l i ty be used -- i s a n e le m e n t o f

th e o f f e n s e th a t m u s t b e s u b m itte d to th e ju ry . C h ie f J u s tic e R e h n q u is t, c o n c u rr i n g i n Gau d i n , u n d e r t o o k a d i s c u s s i o n th a tb e a r s d i r e c t l y o n th i s p o i n t . He w rot e: N othi ng i n the C ou rt ’ s dec i si o n stands as a barri ert o l egi sl atures that w i sh t o d ef

i ne -- or thathave defi ned -- the el em ent s of thei r c ri m i nal l aw s i n s uc h a w a y a s t o r e m ove i s s ue s s uc h a s m a t e r i a l i ty f r om the j ury ’ s c ons i de r a t i on. W e ha ve not e d tha t “ [ t ] he de f i ni t i on o f t he el em ent s of acr i m i nal offe nse i s e ntrust ed t o the l eg i sl ature, pa r t i c u l a r l y i n th e c a s e o f f e d e r a l c r i me s , w h i c h a r e s o l e l y c r e a tu r e s of s t atut e . ” W i thi n br oa d c ons t i tut i ona l bounds , l e gi s l a tur e s ha ve f le x ib ility in d e f

in in g th e e le m e n ts o f

a c r im in a l o f

f e n s e . 51 5 U . S . at52 5, 11 5 S . C t . at23 21 (R ehnq ui st , C . J. , concurri ng ) ( qu ot i ng S t apl es v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 511 U . S . 600, 604, 114 S . C t . 1793, 1796, 128 L . E d. 2d 608 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ) ( o th e rc ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T h u s , e v e n w e r e th e n a tu r e o f a p a r tic u la rf

a c ility (or i ns trume nt a l i ty ) - - a s op po s e d t o the de f e nd a nt ’ s us e of tha t f a c i l i ty -- an el em en t th ati n the cont extof ot her s t atut es w ou l d h ave t o b e s ub m i tt ed t o the j ury u n d e rG a u d in , th e s a tis f a c tio n o f

th is r e q u ir e m e n t h a s b e e n le g is la tiv e ly d e te r m in e d h e r e . B y e x p r e s s ly d e f in in g th e p h r a s e “f

a c ility in [ /o f

] in te r s ta te . . . c om m e r c e , ” C ongr e s s m a y f a i rl y b e s a i d t o ha ve e l i m i na t e d thi s a s a n e l e m e ntof68

th e m u rd er -f

o r- h ir e o ff

en se u n d er§ 1 9 5 8 an d th u s r em o v ed itfr o m th e ju ry ’s c o n s id e r a tio n . I n s h o r t, I b e lie v e th e m a jo r ity h a s r e a d § 1 9 5 8 ( a ) ’s ju r is d ic tio n a l r e q u ir e m e n t in a n o v e r ly c ons tr i c t i ve m a nne r . I tha s done s o by p arsi n g the l a ngua ge of thi s s ubs e c t i on a nd of § 1 95 8(b)(2) i n a w ay thatl ack s tex tu al foun dat i on and i s notsupp ort ed by -- in d e e d , d ir e c tly u n d e r m in e s - - th e c a n o n s o f s ta tu to ry in t e r p r e ta tio n o n w h ic h it p u rp o r t s t o r e l y o rb y § 1 9 5 8 ’ s l e g i s l a t i ve hi s t o ry . Th i s e rr o ra l s o h a s l e d my c o lle a g u e s to f

in d e rr o ru n d e rG a u d i n w h e r e n o n e tru ly e x is ts . D e s p ite th e s e b a s ic anal yt i ca l fl aw s, ho w ever , the m aj ori ty’ s ul t i m at e r eso l ut i on of thi s c as e i s c orre ct be c a us e i ta f

f i r m s D rury ’ s co n v i ct i on i n a l l r e s pe c t s . A c c or di ngl y , I c onc uri n the j udgm e ntr e a c he d.