# Talk:Vicinage Clause

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vicinage Clause/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 19:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this is most of the way there, just needs a few tweaks to satisfy 1(a) and 1(b).  My only issues are all in the "Interpretation" section:

The first two sentences should probably be combined to avoid the awkward "Thus" at the start of the second.  I'd suggest "In murder cases arising from the Indian Territory, Navassa Island, and the No Man's Land of the Oklahoma Panhandle, the Supreme Court has held that the Vicinage Clause places no limits on the prosecution of crimes committed outside the territory of a state."
The next three sentences could be combined into one paragraph.  Actually, the whole section could if you wanted to.
In the sentence on incorporation, preface it with whether the Supreme Court has ruled on the subject (I assume it hasn't, since you're citing circuit courts).
In "The perfect crime?", "lightly-populated" does not require a hyphen.  Also, I'd spell out "Prof.", but that's purely aesthetic.
Just in terms of broadness of coverage: have you scene any other journal articles about the clause?  Does your Con Law book mention it at all?  I'm sure it's not that well-covered, but anything else would certainly be nice, if it exists.  --Coemgenus (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I hope my recent edits have remedied your concerns. As to combining the sentences in the paragraph, I prefer to divide this section by the terms at issue. I also prefer no to say "The Supreme Court has not ruled on this." The Supreme Court has held that the jury right is incorporated against the states; it is ambiguous whether those cases also incorporated the vicinage clause. The three circuit court cases considered this and concluded that the vicinage right was not incorporated. I'd prefer to let that speak for itself. Savidan 02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's all good.  That should do it -- I'll change it to "passed".  --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by the explanation of the SSRN link removal (“I prefer not to link to a preliminary draft; it may confuse readers when they are unable to find the material at the page cited”). You mean the full text provided at SSRN differs significantly from the referenced Georgetown Law Journal, even though SSRN suggests a citation of “Kalt, Brian C., The Perfect Crime. Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 93, No. 2. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=691642”? (I am in no way implying you are wrong, I am just curious; I have arrived to this article after reading the article on SSRN.) I still believe providing the link at least with a disclaimer (something like “preliminary draft available at …”) would be a service to readers. --Mormegil (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether the draft is final or not for sure, but usually when there is a final version on SSRN, it looks like it is out of the actual journal with a cover page. Even if it is word-for-word final, the pagination is not the same as the journal (which makes me doubt that it is final). Savidan 23:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't any crime (such as murder) committed in the Idaho part of Yellowstone be prosecuted under state law due to concurrent jurisdiction? -- Beland (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)