Caudill v. Scott, 88-5154
| Decision Date | 20 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-5154,88-5154 |
| Citation | 857 F.2d 344 |
| Parties | Edward CAUDILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Will T. SCOTT, Circuit Judge, and Pike Circuit Court, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Ned B. Pillersdorf, argued, Prestonsburg, Ky., for petitioner-appellant.
Vickie L. Wise, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, Frederic J. Cowan, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth A. Myerscough, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, Ky., for respondents-appellees.
Before LIVELY, RYAN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.
This case concerns the Sixth Amendment right of the accused in a criminal prosecution to be tried by a jury of the The question is whether a state prosecution must take place in the state judicial district where the crime was committed. The Federal Magistrate to whom the matter was referred held that "the Sixth Amendment right of vicinage does not apply to the states." The district court agreed and denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus.
The petitioner was a magistrate of Floyd County, Kentucky when he was indicted by a grand jury of Floyd County for theft by deception and possession of a forged instrument. The indictment resulted from an investigation into official corruption that implicated several Floyd County officials. The Commonwealth made a motion in the Floyd Circuit Court for a change of venue on the ground that it would be impossible to obtain an impartial jury in Floyd County. The presiding judge of the court held a hearing at which the Commonwealth presented testimony concerning the notoriety of the case and the strong feelings of the community. Caudill offered no evidence. The judge then entered an order transferring venue to adjacent Pike County, Kentucky for trial in the Pike Circuit Court. This order was based on a finding that the citizenry of Floyd County was so opinionated with respect to the charges that neither the defendant nor the Commonwealth would get a fair trial.
Following his conviction of possession of a forged instrument after a jury trial in the Pike Circuit Court, Caudill challenged the change of venue in an appeal to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky. The court of appeals held that the term "district" as used in the Sixth Amendment had never been defined to apply to states, that this particular provision of the Bill of Rights had never been held to have been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Kentucky legislature had protected defendants from being tried in distant places by limiting changes of venue to adjoining counties. See Caudill v. Commonwealth, 723 S.W.2d 881 (Ky.App.1986). While the Sixth Amendment does not require this safeguard the statutory provision does respond to arguments that there can be a due process violation if a state requires a person to face trial in a location far distant from the place where the crime was committed.
Following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Valencia, CR 12-3182 JB
...to have been incorporated, although neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit has commented on the subject. See Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344, 346 (6th Cir. 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593, 595-96 (5th Cir. 1986); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312, 325-26 (3d Cir. 1980). Fourth, ......
-
United States v. Basurto, CR 13-0969 JB
...to have been incorporated, although neither the Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit has commented on the subject. See Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344 (6th Cir. 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1986); Zicarelli v. Dietz, 633 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1980). Fourth, the Supreme Court has......
-
Nichols v. Bell
...used in the Sixth Amendment, refers only to federal judicial districts and has never been defined to apply to states. See Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344 (6th Cir.1988). "Technically, the Sixth Amendment addresses only `vicinage' (the place from which jurors are to be selected) rather than v......
-
People v. Gayheart
...in Federal courts.'" People v. Lee, 334 Mich. 217, 224, 54 N.W.2d 305 (1952) (citation omitted); see also Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344, 345-346 (C.A.6, 1988); Cook v. Morrill, 783 F.2d 593, 595-596 (C.A.5, 1986); People v. Pascarella, 92 Ill.App.3d 413, 417-418, 48 Ill.Dec. 1, 415 N.E.2d ......
-
TERRITORIALITY IN AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW.
...where a crime occurred). One might cite any constitutional case alleging improper venue here too. (83.) See, e.g., Caudill v. Scott, 857 F.2d 344, 345 (6th Cir. 1988) ("[T]he term 'district' as used in the Sixth Amendment ha[s] never been defined to apply to states...."); Zicarelli v. Dietz......