Opinion ID: 612831
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether A Reasonable Jury Could Have Found Venue by a Preponderance of the Evidence

Text: The Constitution contains two provisions on venue in criminal cases. United States v. Medina-Ramos, 834 F.2d 874, 875 (10th Cir.1987). Article III, § 2, cl. 3 requires that the trial of any crime be held in the state in which the crime was committed, while the Sixth Amendment requires that trial be by a jury of the state and district in which the crime was committed. Id. at 875-76. These directives are the product of the Framers' concern over `the unfairness and hardship to which trial in an environment alien to the accused exposes him.' Id. at 876 (quoting United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 275, 65 S.Ct. 249, 89 L.Ed. 236 (1944)). Similarly, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 18 states that `[e]xcept as otherwise permitted by statute or by these rules, the prosecution shall be had in a district in which the offense was committed.' See also Medina-Ramos, 834 F.2d at 876 (quoting Fed.R.Crim.P. 18). Although venue is a right of constitutional dimension, and has been characterized as `an element of every crime,' ... [it] need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Miller, 111 F.3d 747, 749 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Winship, 724 F.2d 1116, 1124 (5th Cir.1984)). Rather, venue need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 749-50 (citing United States v. Record, 873 F.2d 1363, 1366 (10th Cir.1989)). Venue is a question of fact ordinarily decided by the jury. Id. at 749 (citing United States v. Rinke, 778 F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir.1985)). However, [w]hether the government presented sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding on venue is a question of law. United States v. Kelly, 535 F.3d 1229, 1232 (10th Cir.2008) (citing Miller, 111 F.3d at 749). In reviewing whether venue lies in a particular district ... [we] view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and mak[e] all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the finder of fact. Id. at 1232-33 (citing Rinke, 778 F.2d at 584).