Opinion ID: 389975
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Venue Transfer

Text: 7 Appellants submit that the transfer of venue 4 upon retrial to the Victoria Division prejudiced the defendants by imposing additional travel and lodging expenses upon them and their attorneys in addition to the expenses that became necessary in order to subpoena crucial witnesses. These alleged prejudicial effects do not rise to the level necessary to prove the trial judge abused his discretion by transferring venue so as to avoid an unfair trial from a great deal of publicity. 8 In criminal actions, the constitutional unit of venue is the district, not the division. Moreover, the trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether transfer is warranted. Houston v. United States, 419 F.2d 30 (5th Cir. 1969); Bostick v. United States, 400 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1068, 89 S.Ct. 725, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969). Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 notes that (t)he court shall fix the place of trial within the district with due regard to the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses and the prompt administration of justice. (emphasis added). The trial court balanced these two considerations and determined that justice required that the cause be transferred. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in this decision.