Court Opinion

ID: 9472025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:47:17.546913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:42.326344
License: Public Domain

RONEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the court’s holding that this conviction must be reversed because of improper venue.
The trial court found as a fact that there is a field office of the Labor-Management Service Administration (LMSA) in Atlanta, Georgia, where the trustee reports could have been filed. Upon filing the reports in Atlanta, the defendant would have fully complied with the law. Thus, the fact is that the trusteeship reports could have been filed either in the District of Columbia or in the Northern District of Georgia. The failure of the defendant to file in either place was the crime he committed. Where an act can be accomplished in either of two places and the failure to act is the punishable offense, I would hold that venue for the criminal trial would lie in either jurisdiction where defendant could have complied with the law.
As I understand it, the court’s decision does not quarrel with this principle. The eases relied on in the opinion involved only one place fixed for the performance of the required act. The court cites no case, nor has any case been cited by the parties, *765where there are alternative places fixed for performance of the legally required act. The court simply holds that the only statutory place for filing is Washington, D.C., and therefore the offense could be committed only there. In my judgment, however, agency regulations and practices must be considered in making a determination of this kind. Taking those into consideration, there are two alternative places where defendant could have performed the legally required act. The requirement of Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215, 220, 76 S.Ct. 739, 742, 100 L.Ed. 1097 (1956), that for a crime of failure to do a legally required act, “the place fixed for its performance fixes the situs of the crime,” logically fixes the situs of the crime at two points, where there are two places fixed for performance. The decision here is contrary to the premise of Johnston.
Although this defendant happens to live near the District of Columbia, as to others in many parts of the United States, such as California, Hawaii, or Alaska for instance, most of the policy reasons given in the court’s opinion for the venue provisions will be substantially thwarted with the strict application of the decision that the only constitutional venue for this crime is in the District of Columbia.