Court Opinion

ID: 9476160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:48:24.17341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:09.035331
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join in the majority’s analysis and result. I would go further, however, and require the defendant’s knowledge of the place where the telephone call originated as a condition of creating venue in that place. The majority is correct in finding no dis*1282tinction in the language of section 843(b) or in its legislative history between placing and receiving a telephone call. Ultimately, it follows from this that the crime is committed both where the call originates and where it is received — assuming the requisite knowledge. It would seem, however, to violate basic concepts of criminal responsibility and due process to deem a crime committed at places unknown to the defendant, places the very existence of which he may not have had reason even to suspect. I would therefore go beyond the position described in footnote 2 of the majority opinion and require knowledge of the place of origination of the telephone call as a condition of venue there. Cf. United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 276, 65 S.Ct. 249, 250, 89 L.Ed. 236 (1944) (J. Frankfurter) (emphasizing the importance of venue in criminal cases). But see United States v. Kinkle, 624 F.Supp. 629, 632 (E.D.Pa.1985) (venue is proper at place of receipt or origin of call, without regard to knowledge).