Opinion ID: 103352
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Jurisdiction or Venue.

Text: The Sixth Amendment provides that the accused shall be tried by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. Respondents contend that the district court for the Western District of Wisconsin had no jurisdiction or venue to try them since the crime was not committed in that district. The Circuit Court of Appeals held to the contrary, one judge dissenting. As we have noted, the indictment charged that the defendants (1) conspired together to raise and fix the prices on the spot markets; (2) raised, fixed, and maintained those prices at artificially high and non-competitive levels and thereby intentionally increased and fixed the tank car prices of gasoline contracted to be sold and sold in interstate commerce as aforesaid in the Mid-Western area (including the Western District of Wisconsin); (3) have exacted large sums of money from thousands of jobbers in the Mid-Western area by reason of the provisions of the prevailing form of jobber contracts which made the price to the jobber dependent on the average spot market price; and (4) in turn have intentionally raised the general level of retail prices prevailing in said Mid-Western area. As we have seen, there was substantial competent evidence that the buying programs resulted in an increase of spot market prices, of prices to jobbers and of retail prices in the Mid-Western area. And it is clear that certain corporate respondents sold gasoline during this period in the Mid-Western area at the increased prices. The court charged the jury that even though they found that defendants had the purpose and power to raise the spot market prices, they must acquit the defendants unless they also found and believed beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants have also intentionally raised and fixed the tank car price of gasoline contracted to be sold and which was sold in interstate commerce in the Mid-Western area, including the Western District of Wisconsin. It also charged that it was not enough for the prosecution to show an increase in the tank car prices of gasoline within said area, but you must also find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the defendants combined and conspired together or with others for the purpose of increasing and fixing the same as well as for the purpose of raising and fixing the tank car prices in said spot markets, on one or more of them. It further charged that the jury in order to convict must find some overt acts in the Western District of Wisconsin; and that sales of gasoline therein by any of the defendants would constitute such overt acts. Respondents, though agreeing that there were such sales in the Mid-Western area and that the prices on such sales were affected by the rise in the spot markets, deny that they were overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy. Rather, they contend that each of such sales was an individual act of a particular conspirator in the ordinary course of his business by which he enjoyed the results of a conspiracy carried out in another district. That is to say, they take the position that the alleged conspiracy was limited to a restraint of competition in buying and selling on the spot markets and included no joint agreement or understanding as respects sales in the Mid-Western area. In support of this view they cite the government's concessions that it does not claim that each defendant `entered into an agreement not to sell jobbers except in accordance with' the contract described in Paragraph 11 of the Indictment; [64] and that it does not contend that defendants were sitting around a table and agreeing on a uniform retail price. And they assert that there was no evidence that respondents agreed not to sell gasoline in the Western District of Wisconsin except on the basis of spot market prices. Conspiracies under the Sherman Act are on the common law footing: they are not dependent on the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring as a condition of liability. Nash v. United States, supra, at p. 378. But since there was no evidence that the conspiracy was formed within the Western District of Wisconsin, the trial court was without jurisdiction unless some act pursuant to the conspiracy took place there. United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., supra, pp. 402-403, and cases cited. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that there was ample evidence of such overt acts in that district. The finding of the jury on this aspect of the case was also supported by substantial evidence. As we indicated in our discussion of the buying programs, there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury that the conspiracy did not end with an agreement to make purchases on the spot markets; that those buying programs were but part of the wider stabilization efforts of respondents; that the chief end and objective were the raising and maintenance of Mid-Western prices at higher levels. As stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals a different conclusion would require a belief that respondents were engaged in a philanthropic endeavor. They obviously were not. The fact that no uniform jobbers' contract and no uniform retail price policy were agreed upon is immaterial. The objectives of the conspiracy would fail if respondents did not by some formula or method relate their sales in the Mid-Western area to the spot market prices. The objectives of the conspiracy would also fail if respondents, contrary to the philosophy of all the stabilization efforts, indulged in price cutting and price wars. Accordingly, successful consummation of the conspiracy necessarily involved an understanding or agreement, however informal, to maintain such improvements in Mid-Western prices as would result from the purchases of distress gasoline. The fact that that entailed nothing more than adherence to prior practice of relating those prices to the spot market is of course immaterial. In sum, the conspiracy contemplated and embraced, at least by clear implication, sales to jobbers and consumers in the Mid-Western area at the enhanced prices. The making of those sales supplied part of the continuous cooperation necessary to keep the conspiracy alive. See United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 607. Hence, sales by any one of the respondents in the Mid-Western area bound all. For a conspiracy is a partnership in crime; and an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act. United States v. Kissel, supra, p. 608.