Court Opinion

ID: 9490216
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:36:24.366279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:57.557047
License: Public Domain

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. My review of the case law leads me to conclude that any error resulting from the district court’s failure to separately instruct the jury on the issue of venue was harmless.
The United States Constitution guarantees an accused certain fundamental trial rights, including the right to be tried in the state where the crime was committed. U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2, cl. 3; U.S. Const, amend VI. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees 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; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
U.S. Const, amend. VI. Therefore, venue is a fundamental trial right similar to the rights to a speedy trial, to a jury, to confront witnesses, and to counsel.1 And, like other fundamental trial rights,2 venue may be waived. Mahaffey v. Hudspeth, 128 F.2d 940, 942 (10th Cir.) (like the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, venue “is also a personal privilege which may be waived”), cert. denied, 317 U.S. 666, 63 S.Ct. 76, 87 L.Ed. 535 (1942). See also Jenkins v. United States, 392 F.2d 303, 305-06 (10th Cir.1968) (“improper venue may be waived,” but is not *755waived when defendant moves for acquittal or a new trial following the verdict); Lightfoot v. United States, 327 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir.1964) (“By failing to raise the point at the trial and by failing to take a direct appeal, the appellant has waived whatever right he might have to question proof of venue.”); Bickford v. Looney, 219 F.2d 555, 556 (10th Cir.1955) (“The right of an accused to be tried in a particular venue is a personal privilege which may be waived”).
As a fundamental trial right venue is not “merely a matter of formal legal procedure.” United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 276, 65 S.Ct. 249, 250, 89 L.Ed. 236 (1944). However, no matter how fundamental, “venue is a matter that goes to process rather than substantive rights — determining which among various competent courts will decide the case.” American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453, 114 S.Ct. 981, 988, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994). “Venue is wholly neutral; it is a question of procedure, more than anything else, and it does not either prove or disprove the guilt of the accused” “unlike the substantive facts which bear on guilt or innocence in the case.” Wilkett v. United States, 655 F.2d 1007, 1011 (10th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1142, 102 S.Ct. 1001, 71 L.Ed.2d 294 (1982). In other words, venue is more akin to jurisdiction than to an “element” of a crime. See Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347, 349 & 357, 32 S.Ct. 793, 795 & 798, 56 L.Ed. 1114 (1912) (equating jurisdiction with venue); Brown v. Elliott, 225 U.S. 392, 402, 32 S.Ct. 812, 815-16, 56 L.Ed. 1136 (1912) (the Sixth Amendment determines “the jurisdiction” of the trial); United States v. Massa, 686 F.2d 526, 530 (7th Cir.1982) (venue is “more akin to jurisdiction than to the substantive elements of the crime”). For example, if a case is dismissed for improper venue, “[t]he termination of the case [is] not ‘a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the federal elements of the offense charged.’ ” Wilkett, 655 F.2d at 1011-12 (quoting Lee v. United States, 432 U.S. 23, 30 n. 8, 97 S.Ct. 2141, 2145 n. 8, 53 L.Ed.2d 80 (1977)). And, dismissal for lack of venue does not involve issues of double jeopardy nor bar prosecution in the proper venue. Wilkett, 655 F.2d at 1012.3 See United States v. Jackalow, 66 U.S. (1 Black) 484, 17 L.Ed. 225 (1861) (special verdict set aside and new trial granted).
Absent a waiver, failure to guarantee a fundamental constitutional trial right is error. However, such error does not always require reversal of a conviction as “most constitutional errors can be harmless.” Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1263, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (collecting examples of harmless constitutional errors). The “common thread” connecting the cases of harmless constitutional error “is that each involved ‘trial error’- — error which occurred during the presentation .of the case to the jury, and which may therefore be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether [it] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 307-08, 111 S.Ct. at 1264.4
*756In this case, the district court did not specifically instruct the jury on the issue of venue. While I believe the better approach is to submit the question of venue to the jury when the defendant properly requests it,5 it is not clear when, or even if, a district court should submit the issue of venue to the jury.6 It is clear, however, that venue is a question of fact which the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Rinke, 778 F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir.1985). See also United States v. Taylor, 828 F.2d 630, 633 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc) (“[T]he Government bears the burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence.”). Therefore, assuming without deciding, that the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on the issue of venue was error, the error was in the presentation of the case to the jury and, thus, “trial error.”7 As such, the error “shall be disregarded” as harmless unless it “affects substantial rights.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a).8
“Harmless-error review looks ... to the basis on which ‘the jury actually rested its verdict.’” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2081, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (emphasis original) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). “The inquiry, in other words, is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.” Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279, 113 S.Ct. at 2081 (emphasis original). The error must “be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented in order to determine whether [it] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fulminante, 499 U.S. at 308, 111 S.Ct. at 1264. This is not to say that the reviewing court may substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder; the court does not examine the evidence to determine what the jury would have found had there been no error. See Sullivan, 508 U.S. at 279, 113 S.Ct. at 2081-82. Rather, the court examines the evidence presented to determine if the error substantially affected the verdict rendered. Id.
*757In this case, the jury returned a general verdict finding Miller guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute methamphetamine as charged in the indictment. (ROA, Vol. II, Doc. 122). In order to find a defendant guilty of conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846, the jury must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, ‘“(1) [an] agreement with another person to violate the law; (2) knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy; (3) knowing and voluntary involvement; and (4) interdependence among the alleged conspirators.’ ” United States v. Lopez, 100 F.3d 113, 118 (10th Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 430 (10th Cir.1995) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2497, 135 L.Ed.2d 189 (1996)). Accordingly, where the defendant is tried is irrelevant for the purposes of the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant. Evidence, or the lack thereof, regarding the proper venue of the trial does not affect the jury’s factual determination of the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant. However, that is not to say that an error in venue is always harmless. Evidence of venue does affect the verdict to the extent that if venue is improper no constitutionally valid verdict could be reached regardless of the overwhelming evidence against the defendant. See U.S. Const. art. Ill, § 2 cl. 3; U.S. Const. amend. VI. Therefore, the court must determine whether, after reviewing the whole record, there was sufficient evidence of proper venue such that the district court’s failure to instruct separately on the issue of venue was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.9
It is established that “venue as to the prosecution of all members of a conspiracy lies either in the jurisdiction in which the conspiratorial agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction in which an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators.” United States v. Petersen, 611 F.2d 1313, 1333 (10th Cir.1979) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 905, 100 S.Ct. 2985, 64 L.Ed.2d 854 (1980). See also Brown, 225 U.S. 392, 32 S.Ct. 812, 56 L.Ed. 1136; Hudspeth v. McDonald, 120 F.2d 962, 966 (10th Cir.1941) (“[V]enue may be laid either where the conspiracy was formed or where any overt act in furtherance thereof was committed.”), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 617, 62 S.Ct. 110, 86 L.Ed. 496 (1941).
After a careful review of the record, I believe the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to establish that venue was proper in the District of Wyoming. The evidence in this case revealed that: coconspirator Mike Davis (Davis) bought methamphetamine from Miller in Billings, Montana, (ROA, Vol. IX at 20, 27-29 & Vol. X at 47-50, 58-65 & Supp. Vol. I at 4rS, 10-12, 15-16, 21-22, 25, 29, 60, 62); Davis is a resident of Wyoming, (ROA, Supp. Vol. I at 7); Davis returned to Wyoming with the methamphetamine, (ROA, Supp. Vol. I at 7,18, 22), and distributed it to a Larry Gureski in Cody, Wyoming, (ROA, Vol. IX at 35, 40-41, 44, 46, 48, 53-54, 59 & Vol. X at 39-41, 45-47, 54 & Supp. Vol. I at 9, 18, 22-24); and Davis called Miller from Wyoming to arrange for the purchase of methamphetamine, (ROA, Vol. IX at 59-60, 74-75 & Supp. Vol. I at 31). The fact that Miller himself did not travel to Wyoming nor commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy in Wyoming is immaterial, provided that an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed there. See United States v. Smith, 692 F.2d 693, 697 (10th Cir.1982) (“Clearly [coconspirator’s] sale of marijuana in Gillette and his telephone calls *758to [another coconspirator] and Smith from Gillette were overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. Venue was proper in Wyoming whether or not Smith had ever been there himself.”); McDonald, 120 F.2d at 966. Davis’ re-sales of methamphetamine to Gure-ski in Cody, Wyoming, are sufficient to establish that venue was proper in the District of Wyoming for all conspirators, including Miller.
Therefore, I would affirm Miller’s conviction and sentence.10

. See e.g. Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 223, 87 S.Ct. 988, 993-94, 18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967) (right to speedy trial); Singer v. United States, 380 U.S. 24, 85 S.Ct. 783, 13 L.Ed.2d 630 (1965) (right to jury trial); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1067-68, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965) (right to confront witnesses); and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (right to counsel).

. See e.g. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972) (right to speedy trial may be waived); Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S.Ct. 253, 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930) (right to jury trial may be waived); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) (right to confront witnesses may be waived); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) (right to assistance of counsel may be waived). See also United States v. Dobey, 751 F.2d 1140, 1142 (10th Cir.), cert denied, 474 U.S. 818, 106 S.Ct. 63, 88 L.Ed.2d 52 (1985), for additional examples of waiver of a fundamental right.

. Accordingly, the majority’s reversal of Miller's conviction does not bar the government from retrying him. See United States v. Genser, 710 F.2d 1426, 1427 (10th Cir.1983) (“[T]he Supreme Court identified as one of the 'venerable principles of double jeopardy jurisprudence' the proposition that ‘[t]he successful appeal of a judgment of conviction, on any ground other than the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict ... poses no bar to further prosecution on the same charge.'") (quoting United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 90-91, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2193-94, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) (citation omitted)).

. In contrast, structural error requires reversal of a conviction, because such error renders the trial an unreliable vehicle for the determination of guilt. United States v. Wiles, 102 F.3d 1043, 1056 (10th Cir.1996), reh'g granted, 106 F.3d 1516, 1997 WL 61512 (10th Cir.1997). In Wiles, the court held that because the jury did not render a verdict, formal or otherwise, on an essential element of the crime, the district court's failure to instruct on that element was structural error, and, thus, not amenable to analysis under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52. Id. at 1060. This is the analysis the majority erroneously applies here — “failure to instruct on venue, when requested, is reversible error unless it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury's verdict on the charged offense necessarily incorporates a finding of proper venue." (Majority Opinion at 752) (emphasis added). In this case, we are not dealing with structural error; we are dealing with trial error. In contrast to Wiles, the district court here did not fail to instruct on an essential element of the offense of conspiracy, but rather failed to instruct on a trial right. Therefore, I believe any reliance on or reference to the analysis in Wiles is erroneous and ultimately misleading.

. Although Miller requested that in each instruction on the substantive elements of conspiracy an instruction that the jury must find the conspiracy in "the district of Wyoming," this was not a proper request. See ROA, Vol. X at 80. While the substantive elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, see Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277-78, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 2080-81, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), venue need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Rinke, 778 F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir.1985); United States v. Taylor, 828 F.2d 630, 633 (10th Cir.1987) (en banc). Therefore, if venue is to be instructed it must be done so separately from the substantive elements of the crime and under the proper burden of proof. See e.g. Taylor, 828 F.2d at 633.

. The majority relies on United States v. Record, 873 F.2d 1363, 1370 (10th Cir.1989), for the proposition that venue "must be decided by the jury.” (Majority Opinion at 749). However, I find this reliance misplaced and unpersuasive in view of the court’s statement in Record that both Record and the government agreed that “venue was an issue for the trial court to decide.” Record, 873 F.2d at 1370. The court stated, "The instant case, however, does not involve either oversight by the trial court or its denial of a proper request to charge the jury regarding venue, as the parties agreed that the issue was within the province of the trial court.” Id. at 1371. Therefore, this "issue” was not "at issue” in the case and, as such, I believe the court's statements constitute dicta not necessary for the disposition of the case.

. Examples of cases involving structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism, which defy analysis by "harmless error” standards, include: total deprivation of the right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); a judge who was not impartial, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); unlawful exclusion of members of defendant’s race from a grand jury, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 177-78 n. 8, 104 S.Ct. 944, 950-51 n. 8, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); and the right to a public trial, Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 49 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 2217, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984). Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-10, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264-65, 113 L.Ed.2d 302. These errors are "structural defects affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.” Id. at 310, 111 S.Ct. at 1265.

. Although Miller failed to submit a written jury instruction on the issue of venue to the district court, he preserved his objection to the lack thereof at the instruction conference and in his motion for acquittal. Therefore, we review for harmless error rather than plain error. Fed. R.Crim.P. 52.

. The majority states that the district court denied Miller’s motion for acquittal “finding the evidence of venue sufficient to go to the jury.” (Majority Opinion at 748). Although my reading of the district court's findings leads me to believe that the court found venue was proper and that there was sufficient evidence of conspiracy for the jury to consider the charges, it is not overly clear from the record. Therefore, I shall assume for the purposes of this opinion that the majority is correct and that there was no specific finding on the issue of venue. Hence, because there has been no finding of proper venue by the finder of fact in this case, the standard of review set forth in United States v. Rinke, 778 F.2d 581, 584 (10th Cir.1985), and United States v. Wiles, 102 F.3d 1043, 1064 (10th Cir.1996), reh’g granted, 106 F.3d 1516, 1997 WL 61512 (10th Cir.1997), does not apply, i.e., "whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and making all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in favor of the finder of fact, the Government proved by a preponderance of direct or circumstantial evidence that the crimes charged occurred within the district” of prosecution. Rinke, 778 F.2d at 584.

. Although I believe Miller’s other contentions are without merit, I will not address them at this time in view of the majority's holding because any discussion of these issues would be a waste of judicial resources.