Whoever moves or travels in interstate or foreign commerce with intent either (1) to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which he flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a crime, punishable by death or which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the fugitive flees, or (2) to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings in such place in which the commission of an offense punishable by death or which is a felony under the laws of such place, is charged, or (3) to avoid service of, or contempt proceedings for alleged disobedience of, lawful process requiring attendance and the giving of testimony or the production of documentary evidence before an agency of a State empowered by the law of such State to conduct investigations of alleged criminal activities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. For the purposes of clause (3) of this paragraph, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
Violations of this section may be prosecuted only in the Federal judicial district in which the original crime was alleged to have been committed, or in which the person was held in custody or confinement, or in which an avoidance of service of process or a contempt referred to in clause (3) of the first paragraph of this section is alleged to have been committed, and only upon formal approval in writing by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or an Assistant Attorney General of the United States, which function of approving prosecutions may not be delegated.
Notes of Decisions
Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (1956).
· cites it 4× “Thus Poret's claim is, in effect, that a flight which itself is a violation of federal law, 18 U. S. C. § 1073 , is converted into a federal immunity from the operation of a valid state rule.”
People v. Zambrano, 163 P.3d 4 (Cal. 2007).
· cites it 2× “On appeal, defendant asserts the following: By advising defendant to commit the additional crime of interstate or foreign flight to escape murder charges (see 18 U.S.C.A. § 1073 ), Attorney Rien placed himself in a dilemma.”
Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015).
· cites it 2× “Includ- ing the powers under which Congress has restricted the ability of various people to leave the country (fugitives from justice, for example, see 18 U. S. C. §1073 )—even though passports are the principal means of controlling exit.”
State v. Torres, 2004 OK 12 (Okla. 2004).
· cites it 2× “[7] The provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1073 , authorize the issuance of a federal warrant, which permits federal law enforcement agents to apprehend state fugitives, release them to local authorities in the state of arrest, and allow extradition to the state in which the federal…”
United States v. Clarence Bill McCord, 695 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 5× “*825 PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant, Clarence Bill McCord, appeals from his conviction for unlawful flight to avoid confinement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073 . 1 On appeal, he raises some ten issues attacking his trial and conviction.”
United States v. Ponzo, 853 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2017).
“§ 894 (a)(1); unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1073 ; conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.”
California v. Superior Court of Cal., San Bernardino Cty., 482 U.S. 400 (1987).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, Congress has explicitly pointed out that the Fugitive Felon Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1073 , which makes it a federal crime for a person to move or travel "in interstate or foreign commerce with intent .”
United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “§ 228 (e) (designating venue in prosecutions for failure to pay child support); 18 U.S.C. § 1073 (designating venue in prosecutions for flight to avoid prosecution or giving testimony); 18 U.”
Kristin Loupe v. Robin O'Bannon, 824 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2016).
“In Rykers , “the federal prosecutors received information from Louisiana authorities alleging a violation of Louisiana criminal law; translated that information into the federal charge of interstate flight to avoid prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1073 ; and obtained a federal…”
United States v. Osama Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003).
“At least one court has reached the same conclusion under a statute that punishes interstate flight “to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings,” 18 U.S.C. § 1073 (emphasis added). See Hemans v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.