Document: 376 U.S. 240 84 S.Ct. 769 11 L.Ed.2d 674 Hon. Casper PLATT, Petitioner,v.MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO. No. 113. Argued Jan. 9, 1964. Decided March Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. John T. Chadwell, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Rule 21(b) Federal Rules Criminal Procedure provides that where it appears an offense was committed in more than one district or division and court 'is satisfied interest justice proceeding should be transferred' to another such wherein is filed, shall, upon motion, transfer case. The respondent filed a motion this antitrust prosecution from Eastern District Illinois Minnesota. After hearing, trial judge denied on ground factors convenience, expense early trial, together with fact 'would difficult (for Government) get fair impartial jury Minnesota District,' convinced him 'the justice' would not promoted by transfer. then petitioned Court Appeals issue writ mandamus1 directing found had treated factor as 'most important item'2 his decision appropriate criterion. It concluded addition essential elements constituting 'interest civil case,' criminal case 'impressed fundamental historical right defendant prosecuted its own environment * *.'3 Upon reviewing record, substituted findings those ordered transferred. 314 F.2d 369. Chief Judge Hastings dissented. We granted petition certiorari view importance questions multivenue cases. 374 825, 83 1870, 10 1050. believe erred ordering therefore vacate judgment remand further consideration I. 2 A grand sitting at Danville, United States Illinois, returned indictment charging violating §§ Sherman Act. charged attempt monopolize conspiracy restrain interstate foreign commerce pressure-sensitive tape, magnetic recording media aluminum presensitized lithographic plates. alleged have been part which includes both Danville East St. Louis. agreed could well several other districts. 3 found, contradiction finding Court, result unjustifiable increased expenses 'at least $100,000, great inconvenience witnesses, serious disruption business interference contact between (respondent's) executives attorneys *.'4 also no office, plant, facility there less congestion docket Illinois. 'demonstration proof admission case,'5 which, augmented additional action, compelled granting 4 In awarding mandamus placed particular weight judge's Illinois.' stated finding, if true 'which doubted), justify refusal make otherwise proper under rule *.'6 'it unsound dangerous innovation our federal system any appraise even speculate efficacy operations concurrent jurisdiction district. follows order way based reasoning can stand, guise exercise discretion.'7 Appeals, footnote, characterized most item'8 despite statement answer show cause 'was but number factors, led conclusion.' II. 5 memorandum listed items pertinent determination whether transferred 'in required 21(b). As pointed out dissent, these 'factors were (1) location corporate defendant; (2) possible witnesses; (3) events likely issue; (4) documents records involved; (5) defendant's unless transferred; (6) parties; (7) counsel; (8) relative accessibility place trial; (9) condition each (10) special might affect transfer.'9 6 th t parties agree first nine enumerated appropriate. we noted, struck being Government does challenge action here. Nor has challenged use extraordinary means review therefore, consider matters here, assuming, without deciding, their validity purposes This leaves before us question considering de novo record made III. 7 cannot say, did item' mind when he ruled against difficulty selection Platt gave matter so peculiarly within knowledge seems resolve it. He represented factors.' Court's inappropriate empower function determine criteria leave application remand. Extraordinary writs are 'reserved really causes,' Ex parte Fahey, 332 258, 260, 67 1558, 1559, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947), only 'to confine inferior lawful prescribed compel authority duty do so.' Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 21, 26, 63 938, 941, 87 1185 (1943). Here, however, undertook examination itself exercised discretionary commits judge. done since used actually control court.' Bankers Life Casualty Co. Holland, 346 379, 383, 74 145, 148, 98 106 (1953). IV. 8 Since must reconsider effective judicial administration requires comment erroneous holding defendants constitutionally home Art. III, § 2, Constitution 'The Trial all Crimes shall held State said *.' Sixth Amendment carries like command. Cores, 356 405, 407, 78 875, 877, 873 (1958): makes clear venue crime committed. provision vicinity safeguard unfairness hardship involved accused remote place.' main office 'home' independent significance determining justice,' although may considered reference convenience records, officers, personnel counsel. 9 reversed remanded instructions reconsideration transfer, ability receive ordered. Reversed instructions. 12 HARLAN, concurring. 13 I join following brief comments. 14 First, myself wish mak explicit what indeed implicit opinion, namely, entirely correct speculation able obtain wholly bounds. 15 Second, while Appeals' outright reversal understandably reflects making change venue, stripped impermissible 'impartial jury' consideration, strong, regarded Appeals. Such course inescapably contravenes accepted principles governing appellate jurisdiction. All Writs Act grants courts power 'all necessary aid respective jurisdictions agreeable usages law.' 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). 369, 371, n. 1. Id., 375. 375, 3. 373. 376—377.

Category: 8