VIII. Defenses
Sixth Circuit
• VenueU.S. v. Grenoble, 04-3469 (6/29/05)
> Defendant was charged with wire fraud in the Northern District of Ohio (ND Ohio). At trial, defendant moved for a Rule 29 dismissal claiming that the government failed to establish venue in the district. The district court denied the motion, and defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court first held that venue is ordinarily waived if not raised in a pretrial motion. The exception, however, is where the venue issue is not apparent on the face of the indictment, and defendant does not have notice of the potential defect through other means. The court then held that venue was proper in the ND Ohio because defendant had sent faxes to victims of the offense in the ND Ohio which induced them to invest their funds with defendant. Thus, the district court ruling was affirmed.
• Venue
U.S. v. Brika, 02-4329 (7/27/05)
> Defendant was charged with kidnaping and using a phone to extort money. Defendant challenged venue in the Southern District of Ohio for the telephone extortion count. Defendant had made phone calls to the kidnaping victim’s family in the Southern District of Ohio from out of state. The district court found venue proper, and defendant appealed.
* Holding: In determining whether venue is appropriate, the court utilizes the “substantial contacts” test, which considers the site of defendant’s act, the elements and nature of the crime, the locus of the effect of the criminal conduct, and the suitability of each district for accurate fact finding. The court held that, given that defendant had called the victim’s family in the Southern District of Ohio, and the FBI taped the conversation in such district, venue was proper and the conviction was affirmed.
• Venue
U.S. v. Jamieson, 02-3403 (10/28/05)
> Defendant was charged in a high profile insurance fraud case, and moved for a change of venue. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: A district court must transfer a case to another venue if the defendant would be so prejudiced that she cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in the transferring district. In the case, the court held that most of the pretrial publicity had been a year before the trial and that the articles portraying the events were fair and balanced. Further, the court found that the district court had conducted extensive voir dire to ensure that no jurors were biased by the pretrial publicity. Accordingly, the conviction was affirmed.
• Venue
U.S. v. Kuehne, 06-3668 (10/28/08)
> Defendant was charged with numerous firearm offenses. At trial, the government proved that defendant and others stole firearms in the Southern District of Ohio, traveled to New York to exchange the firearms for drugs, and returned to the Ohio to distribute the drugs. Defendant was convicted and filed a motion for acquittal based on venue. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
* Holding: Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 18, venue lies in any district in which the offense was committed. Venue may lie in more than one district. In the case, the court held that defendant’s activities of stealing the firearms in the Southern District of Ohio, then returning there to distribute the drugs and proceeds, was sufficient to establish venue in the Southern District of Ohio. Accordingly, the district court ruling was affirmed.