Court Opinion

ID: 9461057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:04:53.101344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:52.401022
License: Public Domain

McCREE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the opinion of the court that parties may stipulate to the existence of facts that may confer federal jurisdiction. But the principle that commands strict construction of jurisdictional statutes also requires careful scrutiny of stipulations of jurisdictional facts. See, e. g., McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). I would hold that the stipulation does not establish jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1301(32).
The stipulation was entered as one of several stipulations of fact, and the circumstances surrounding its adoption do not indicate that it was entered into for the purpose of conferring special air*423craft jurisdiction on the district court. Instead, the parties stipulated only that appellant “gave birth” to a child “during the flight” from Pittsburgh to Youngstown. This stipulation is insufficient to confer the special jurisdiction for two reasons. First, although the court states that the phrase “during the flight” is unambiguous and that “its normal meaning would be the period while the aircraft was in the air,” I observe that the word flight is also defined as “a trip made by or in an airplane” or “an airplane making a scheduled flight.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Either of these definitions comprehends a longer span of time than that specified in the special aircraft jurisdictional statute. Second, the stipulation does not state that appellant committed the offense of which she was convicted within the special aircraft jurisdiction. She stipulated only that she “gave birth” to a child “during the flight,” an act that is not criminal. She did not agree that delivery took place before the end of the landing run or, even if the child was born aloft, that, with the requisite criminal intent, she abandoned it within the special aircraft jurisdiction.
The deficiency of the stipulation was not remedied by the evidence adduced at trial. Appellant was not asked if birth occurred while the aircraft was in the air, and she testified, without contradiction, that she was not even aware that she had delivered a baby. Other evidence shows only that the aircraft departed from Pittsburgh at 8:35 p. m.; that approximately fifteen minutes later at 8:50 p. m. she walked into the lavatory; that the aircraft arrived at Youngstown at 9:02 p. m.; and that she left the lavatory and deplaned approximately fifteen minutes later at 9:17 p. m. These facts do not establish that the offense of unlawfully and wil-fully attempting to commit involuntary manslaughter occurred within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. Accordingly, I would hold that the district* court’s jurisdiction was not established, and that appellant’s conviction should be reversed.