Opinion ID: 500380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Procedure for Deciding Federal Immunity Questions.

Text: 218 We now address the question perhaps more troubling in this case: by what method should it be decided whether a state does or does not have jurisdiction to prosecute a federal agent? Framed differently, perhaps the question is one of who should bear the burden. 219 Our study of the history of congressional provisions for removal and habeas corpus in these cases, coupled with our review of the purpose of immediate appeal rights in analogous civil situations involving the qualified immunity defense, leads us to conclude that the district court in the present case properly granted the government's pretrial motion to dismiss. 220 We turn first to the Commonwealth's assertion that material underlying facts were in dispute and that the district court therefore improperly sustained the Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. In light of the peculiar evidentiary posture of the case, and the purpose of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1), we hold that the district court properly dismissed this case on the pretrial motion. Rule 12, Fed.R.Crim.P., states: 221 (b) Pretrial Motions. Any defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue may be raised before trial by motion. 222