Court Opinion

ID: 9468734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:22:22.394851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:01.708219
License: Public Domain

WINTER, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
In my view, venue for this prosecution for commission of the substantive offense lay solely in the District of Columbia so that it was reversible error to try defendant, over his objection, in the District of Maryland. I do not think that the conviction can be upheld on the theory that defendant was also prosecuted as an aider and abettor because the case was submitted to the jury on both theories, and it returned a general verdict, not indicating on what theory it found defendant guilty.
I respectfully dissent.
I.
The indictment in this case charged that defendant “did by threat and force endeav- or to influence, intimidate and impede a witness ... in the discharge of his duty as such witness by attempting to cause [the witness] to testify falsely and by attempting to prevent [the witness] from testify*456ing”, all with respect to two criminal cases pending in the District of Maryland. The indictment was based upon certain of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, viz. “[w]ho-ever ... by threats or force . . . endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any witness, in any court of the United States . . . shall be fined no more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both,” as well as on 18 U.S.C. § 2, the aiding and abetting statute. It is conceded that all of defendant’s alleged criminal conduct occurred in the District of Columbia.
As the majority opinion recognizes, the circuits are split on the issue of venue in circumstances such as those present in this case. The majority, following the decision of the First and Sixth Circuits, holds that venue lies in Maryland where the cases in which the witness would testify were pending. I find the authorities which would lead to the opposite conclusion more persuasive, and I would follow them. See United States v. Nadolny, 601 F.2d 940 (7 Cir. 1979); United States v. Swann, 441 F.2d 1053 (D.C.Cir.1971); United States v. Brothman, 191 F.2d 70 (2 Cir. 1951). To me the offense was complete when the accused endeavored to influence the witness, and this occurred in the District of Columbia. The significance of the phrase “in any court of the United States” is simply to define the protected class of witnesses — they are not to be witnesses in a state court or witnesses before a federal, state or municipal administrative body. Thus I cannot read the limitation as having any bearing on venue when Congress has failed to specify venue. It seems to me that the purpose of § 2 of the Act of March 2, 1831 which was the predecessor of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, see Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 45-48, 61 S.Ct. 810, 814-815, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941), was to remove the courts’ power to punish for constructive contempts and to require that such proceedings be conducted by the normal process of indictment, trial and conviction, including normal rules with respect to venue. Thus I cannot conclude that the offended court should be the preferred forum for prosecution of acts occurring elsewhere.
Finally I think it unfortunate that the rule prescribed for this circuit is contrary to that of the District of Columbia Circuit which is an enclave without our own circuit. I can visualize potential administrative problems, if not anomalous results, where the circumstances of a crime involve the District of Columbia and one or more of the adjoining states.
II.
I agree with so much of the government’s argument as urges that defendant may have been properly convicted as aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. But the case was argued and submitted to the jury on the theory that defendant was guilty as a principal as well as an aider and abettor. I think this was “plain error"; certainly the district court had been alerted to the venue problem by defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss. On what theory the jury convicted is not disclosed by its general verdict. Thus I do not think that the conviction can be saved.
I would reverse and grant a new trial.