United States v. Elliott
| Decision Date | 08 March 1978 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 77-00001-L. |
| Citation | 446 F. Supp. 209 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. James Edward ELLIOTT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
Robert S. Stubbs, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., Roanoke, Va., for plaintiff.
George I. Vogel, II, Wilson, Hawthorne & Vogel, Roanoke, Va., for defendant.
Defendant raises, by a motion to dismiss the indictment, the question of proper venue for the prosecution of the offense of endeavoring to obstruct justice as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 1503. He contends, in his accompanying motion to transfer, that any prosecution in this case should take place in the Middle District of North Carolina. He relies on Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and the decision in United States v. Swann, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 363, 441 F.2d 1053 (1971). The United States, on the other hand, argues that the legislative history of Section 1503 and the case of United States v. O'Donnell, 510 F.2d 1190 (6th Cir. 1975), indicate that venue is proper in the Western District of Virginia.
The indictment charges that, on December 11, 1977, in the Middle District of North Carolina, defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, intimidate and impede Connie Sawyer in the discharge of her duty as a witness in the case of United States v. Whitehead, et al., then pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Defendant allegedly attempted to prevent Sawyer from testifying by offering her a sum of money to leave the area in which she then resided.
Both sides have stipulated that all the actions alleged in this indictment occurred in the Middle District of North Carolina. Furthermore, at the time in question, both defendant and Sawyer were residents of that district. The only connection of this case with the Western District of Virginia is the fact that Sawyer was to testify in a trial pending in said district.
Section 1503 of Title 18, derived from Section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1831, 4 Stat. 487, deals with contemptuous conduct occurring away from or not in the presence of the court. It has been referred to as prescribing "constructive contempt of court." United States v. O'Donnell, 510 F.2d at 1193. The statute, however, does not indicate where venue properly lies. The basic venue requirements for federal criminal prosecutions are prescribed by Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. These sections guarantee a trial in the state and district where the offense was committed. In addition, it has been determined that where Congress has not been explicit about venue, "the locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it." United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699, 703, 66 S.Ct. 1213, 1216, 90 L.Ed. 1529 (1946).
The issue of proper venue under Section 1503 was decided in United States v. O'Donnell, supra. In that case, a trial was pending in the Western District of Tennessee, and the defendant had made arrangements in Texas to kill a witness. The court held that venue was proper in the Western District of Tennessee because that was the district where the administration of justice was intended to be obstructed. In reaching that conclusion, the court relied upon the decision in Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 61 S.Ct. 810, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941). The defendants in Nye had exerted an improper influence on an illiterate plaintif...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Reed
...court, however, has held that the district of the target proceeding is the only permissible place for trial. See United States v. Elliott, supra, 446 F.Supp. at 210. Despite this discord among the circuits, the path this Court must follow has already been marked. The Second Circuit has held......
-
Special Investigation No. 224, In re, 202
...United States v. Tedesco, 635 F.2d 902 (1st Cir.1980); United States v. O'Donnell, 510 F.2d 1190 (6th Cir.1975); United States v. Elliott, 446 F.Supp. 209 (D.Va.1978). Contra United States v. Swann, 441 F.2d 1053 (D.C.Cir.1971).* Neither at the hearing below nor before us has counsel for ei......
-
United States v. Culoso
...United States v. Floyd, 228 F.2d 913 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 351 U.S. 938, 76 S.Ct. 835, 100 L.Ed. 1466 (1956); United States v. Elliot, 446 F.Supp. 209 (W.D.Va.1978). Obviously, venue in this District on these last two counts is also consistent with the principles supporting Candella, Th......
-
U.S. v. Barham
...in which the court sits or in which the proceeding is pending. 510 F.2d at 1194 (emphasis in original). Accord United States v. Elliott, 446 F.Supp. 209 (W.D.Va.1978). Finally, in United States v. Tedesco, 635 F.2d 902 (1st Cir. 1980), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 3112, 69 L.Ed.2d......