Loading...
In a recent blog post on Just Security, it was suggested that a relatively unnoticed case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court might have influenced the special counsel’s decision regarding the jurisdiction to bring charges against former President Donald Trump. According to sources cited by the New York Times, Special counsel Jack Smith has secured an indictment against Trump related to his handling of classified documents in Miami. This is in contrast to prior reports by the same publication, which indicated that evidence in the case had been presented to a grand jury in Washington, D.C.
A Supreme Court case currently under review may have influenced the choice of grand jury location. The case questions whether a defendant can be retried after the government secures a conviction in an incorrect venue. Just Security explains that the Constitution mandates that each criminal charge must be brought in the jurisdiction where the alleged conduct occurred. However, since conduct often spans multiple jurisdictions, the government typically has the freedom to select a venue based on various factors.
Considering the hypothetical scenario where Smith charges Trump in Washington, D.C., and secures a conviction, what happens if the jury or an appellate court determines that all the charged conduct actually transpired outside Washington, D.C.? The ongoing Supreme Court case, Smith v. United States, could potentially preclude a retrial in Florida, as per Just Security’s analysis.
The Smith case involves Timothy J. Smith, a software engineer and fisherman accused of hacking into a Pensacola-based company’s website and stealing information on artificial fishing reef locations. Smith faced trial in Pensacola, Florida, where he was acquitted of federal hacking charges but convicted on counts related to theft of trade secrets and extortion.
Smith argued that the venue in Pensacola was improper, as he resided in the Southern District of Alabama while the company’s servers were located in the Middle District of Florida. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta invalidated the trade secrets conviction, citing an incorrect venue. While the 11th Circuit indicated that Smith could be retried in the proper venue, Smith contests this assertion.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Initial coverage of the Supreme Court oral arguments suggests that the justices leaned toward the government’s perspective. However, Just Security notes that the government faced several challenging and skeptical questions from the justices. Furthermore, even if the court rules that an incorrect venue decision does not always prevent a retrial, the justices are likely to establish limiting principles.
In light of this pending case, Just Security argues that cautious prosecutors will be hesitant to select a venue where an erroneous decision would preclude the possibility of a retrial in another district. Washington, D.C., might have been a more favorable jurisdiction for the prosecution due to a larger pool of Democratic-leaning jurors and the potential assignment of U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon, who Trump appointed. Judge Cannon had previously appointed a special master to review documents seized from Trump, a decision that was overturned by a federal appeals court, as reported by the New York Times.
While several sources, relying on anonymous information, claim that Judge Cannon has been initially assigned to the case, the developments surrounding the choice of jurisdiction and the potential impact of the pending Supreme Court case continue to unfold.
