Opinion ID: 390861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: flying west for the winter: the change of venue

Text: 16 The indictment of two judges and various other public servants understandably generated considerable publicity in the Middle District of Florida, the district in which the crimes were allegedly committed. Consequently, defendants Smith and Black filed motions to transfer the trial to another district on the grounds that they would be unable to obtain a fair trial in the Middle District of Florida. Appellant Riggs adopted the motions of his codefendants. However, appellant Harrell expressly refused to adopt the motions, while appellant Stratton's counsel, noting that I know of no grounds to object to (the change of venue) motions, stated that his client stood neutral. See Record, Volume 33 at 4-10. Despite the fact that not all defendants were in favor of a change of venue, the trial court granted the motions made by Smith and Black and changed the situs of the trial from the Middle District of Florida (at Jacksonville) to the Eastern District of Louisiana (at New Orleans). 14 Defendant Harrell subsequently asked for a severance, asserting his constitutional right to be tried in the state and district in which the alleged crime was committed, but the trial court denied Harrell's motion. On appeal, both Harrell and Stratton argue that their constitutional rights were abridged by the change of venue without their consent. 17 Article III, section 2, clause 3 of the United States Constitution provides that The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed  The Sixth Amendment expands this rule and expresses it as a right of the accused by providing that In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed  U.S.Const. amend. VI (emphasis added). The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure help to preserve this important constitutional right 15 by providing 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. Fed.R.Crim.P. 18. Because of this constitutional right, Fed.R.Crim.P. 21(a) conditions a change of venue upon the defendant's request therefor. Absent the request, a change of venue may not be ordered. United States v. Abbott Laboratories, 505 F.2d 565, 572 (4th Cir. 1974) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 990, 95 S.Ct. 1424, 43 L.Ed.2d 671 (1975); see United States v. Means, 409 F.Supp. 115 (D.S.D.1976); United States v. Holder, 399 F.Supp. 220 (D.S.D.1975); see also Margoles v. United States, 407 F.2d 727 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 833, 90 S.Ct. 89, 24 L.Ed.2d 84 (1969). A defendant therefore cannot be forced to accept a change of venue against his will. Abbott Laboratories, supra, 505 F.2d at 572. 18 In the case at bar, the government concedes that each defendant has the constitutional right to be tried in the state and district where the crime has been committed, but suggests that this right is not absolute. The government notes that the widespread pretrial publicity in this case would have jeopardized defendants' right to a fair trial had the venue not been changed. Since certain defendants moved for a change of venue, and since the trial judge properly granted this motion based on pretrial publicity, the government points out that the only way to have protected the other defendants' right to be tried in the state and district where the crime was committed would have been to order a severance and separate trials. Because of the complexity of the case at bar, the government suggests that interests of judicial economy required the trial court to follow the route chosen below. 19 We disagree. While the trial court may well have been nobly motivated by the conclusion that the fairest place for all these defendants was a joint trial before jurors outside the Middle District of Florida, Brief for the United States at 21, the decision to change venue with regard to all defendants went beyond the province of the trial court. It is for the defendant and his attorney to determine whether adverse pretrial publicity is so pervasive that the defendant should waive his right to be tried in the state and district in which the alleged crime was committed. The court does not have the option of waiving this right on behalf of the defendant and transferring venue, even if the trial judge sincerely believes that such action would be for defendant's own good. Moreover, while the government may be correct in arguing that a defendant's venue right is not absolute, interests of judicial convenience and economy clearly cannot outweigh this fundamental constitutional right. A defendant's right to be tried in the state and district in which the crime was allegedly committed cannot be cast by the wayside simply because his case is a complex one involving several defendants. Using as powerful a magnifying glass as we have, we can find no judicial economy exception between the lines of the Sixth Amendment. Unless appellants Harrell and Stratton each waived his venue right in the case at bar, the trial court's change of venue clearly abridged an important constitutional right. 20 As noted above, the right to be tried in the state and district where the crime was alleged to have been committed may be voluntarily waived by the defendant. United States v. Marcello, 423 F.2d 993, 1001-06 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 959, 90 S.Ct. 2172, 26 L.Ed.2d 543 (1970). The essential factors in determining whether a defendant has waived his constitutional venue right are knowledge of the right, the free exercise of an uncoerced will, and conduct or action known to the accused which evidences an intent to waive. Id. at 1004. In Marcello, the defendant affirmatively moved for a change of venue, but subsequently failed to vigorously press his motion. However, at no time did the defendant withdraw his change of venue motion. This court held that under such circumstances the district court was justified in ordering a change of venue and was not required to withdraw its order when subsequently asked to do so by the defendant. 21 Applying the above standard to the case at bar, it is clear that neither defendant Harrell nor defendant Stratton knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to be tried in the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed. Harrell expressly noted that he refused to adopt his codefendants' motions to change venue, thereby giving express notice to the trial court that he did not choose to waive his venue right. Moreover, after his codefendants' change of venue motions were granted, Harrell made his position even clearer by moving for a severance in order to protect his constitutional right to be tried in the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed. Although the facts with regard to defendant Stratton differ slightly, a careful reading of the record reveals that like Harrell, Stratton never waived his venue right. When asked whether he adopted his codefendants' motions to change venue, Stratton's attorney answered that he stood neutral, since he knew of no grounds to object to (the change of venue) motions. This remark makes it clear that Stratton did not knowingly and voluntarily waive the venue right as required by Marcello, supra. An attorney who announces that he knows of no grounds on which to object to a change of venue motion i. e., an attorney who makes it clear that he is ignorant of his client's right to demand a trial in the state and district in which the crime was allegedly committed cannot knowingly and voluntarily waive his client's venue right. Since valid waivers of fundamental constitutional guarantees  'not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences,'  In re Bryan, 645 F.2d 331, at 333 (5th Cir. 1981), quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1468, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), it is clear that neither defendant Harrell nor defendant Stratton waived his venue right in the case at bar. 16 22 The cases which stand for the proposition that an objection to venue is waived by the defendant's failure to object to the improper venue prior to trial, see, e. g., United States v. Menendez, 612 F.2d 51, 54-55 (2d Cir. 1979); United States v. Boney, 572 F.2d 397 (2d Cir. 1978); Kitchen v. United States, 532 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Dryden, 423 F.2d 1175, 1178 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 950, 90 S.Ct. 1869, 26 L.Ed.2d 290 (1970), do not support the government's argument in the case at bar. While in many (and perhaps most) cases in which the defendant fails to object to a defect in venue, the defendant's silence may be taken to imply a waiver of the venue right, in the case at bar more than mere silence must be taken into account. As noted above, both defendant Harrell's attorney and defendant Stratton's attorney made statements which preclude the conclusion that their clients knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to be tried in the state and district in which the crime was allegedly committed. Defendant Harrell's attorney clearly expressed an objection to the proposed change of venue, while defendant Stratton's attorney clearly expressed his ignorance of the right. A knowing and intelligent waiver of these defendants' venue rights cannot be inferred from the facts of this case. 17 23 The government makes much of the fact that defendant Stratton's attorney appointed late in the case adopted the previously made motions of his codefendants as a matter of expediency. The government suggests that Stratton therefore moved for a change of venue through his codefendants and that his neutral stance at the venue hearing was simply a failure to withdraw this adopted motion. Such a characterization of the facts would make Stratton's case similar to that of the defendant in Marcello, supra, a case in which this court held that a defendant who moves for a change of venue and subsequently fails to vigorously press the motion but also fails to withdraw it, cannot object to a change of venue. However, the government's argument mischaracterizes the facts of this case. While it is true that Stratton's attorney adopted those motions of the other defense attorneys made prior to his appointment as counsel, the government admits that the change of venue motions were made after this adoption. Hence, the change of venue motions could not have been included within the motions adopted by Stratton's attorney. Indeed, by the time of the venue motions, Stratton's attorney was an active participant in the trial on behalf of his client. Hence, it is clear that Stratton never adopted the motions to change venue. The neutral stance taken by Stratton's attorney at the venue hearing was therefore not a failure to withdraw a change of venue motion as in Marcello, but was rather a failure to move for change of venue in the first place. Coupled with the comments evidencing Stratton's attorney's ignorance of the venue right, the neutral change of venue position did not give the trial court the discretion to change the case's venue with regard to defendant Stratton. 24 The trial court's decision to change the venue of a case with regard to two defendants who had not waived their constitutional right to be tried in the state and district in which the crime charged was alleged to have been committed is both unprecedented and unconstitutional. We shall not put our imprimatur upon such an action. Since neither Harrell nor Stratton implicitly or explicitly waived his venue right, each had the right to be tried in the Middle District of Florida if he so desired. However noble the trial judge's motivation in this case, his decision to change venue with regard to these two defendants was error. 25 As an alternative position, the government contends that if the trial judge committed error in his venue decision, this error was harmless. This argument is clearly without merit; in fact, it represents a dangerous attack on the constitution. First, the government conveniently brushes the inconveniences suffered by defendants aside, and virtually ignores the fact that the change of venue forced the defendants to undergo trial in an unfamiliar location hundreds of miles away from the place where the case was initiated, where the defense attorneys' offices and support staffs were located, and where many of the witnesses could be found. The expense and inconvenience of the change of venue in this case were certainly no small matter. In addition and much more importantly the government's harmless error argument misconstrues the constitutional violation in this case. Part of the fair trial guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution is the right to be tried by a jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed  U.S.Const. amend. VI; see page 1076 supra. This fundamental right seeks to ensure the preservation of a certain process a mode of fair treatment for all defendants. Absent an implicit or explicit waiver, an abridgement of this right denies the defendant the fundamental fair process guaranteed by the Constitution, and is inherently a harmful error, just as an abridgement of the right to a trial by jury is inherently a harmful error. See Gutman, Academic Determinism: The Division of the Bill of Rights, 54 S.Cal.L.Rev. 295, 355-56 (January 1981). The venue right is not one borne of convenience for defendants, 18 but is rather one borne of fundamental notions of fairness as conceived by our Constitution's framers. Since the venue right is designed to ensure a fundamentally fair process, forcing a defendant against his wishes to undergo a trial in a state or district other than that in which the crime charged is alleged to have been committed is in and of itself harmful. See id. at 355-56. 26 Neither defendant Harrell nor defendant Stratton waived his constitutional venue right in the case at bar. It was thus error for the trial court to have ordered a change of venue with regard to these two defendants, and the error was harmful. The convictions of both defendants must therefore be reversed and their cases remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 27