Amdt6.3.3.2 Right to a Local Jury: Doctrine and Practice

Sixth Amendment:

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 defence.

An accused cannot be tried in one district under an indictment showing that the offense was committed in another; 1 the place where the offense is charged to have been committed determines the place of trial. 2 Thus, a defendant cannot be tried in Missouri for money-laundering if the charged offenses occurred in Florida and there was no evidence that the defendant had been involved with the receipt or transportation of the proceeds from Missouri. 3 In a prosecution for conspiracy, the accused may be tried in any state and district where an overt act was performed. 4 Where a United States Senator was indicted for agreeing to receive compensation for services to be rendered in a proceeding before a government department, and it appeared that a tentative arrangement for such services was made in Illinois and confirmed in St. Louis, the defendant was properly tried in St. Louis, although he was not physically present in Missouri when notice of ratification was dispatched. 5 The offense of obtaining transportation of property in interstate commerce at less than the carrier’s published rates, 6 or the sending of excluded matter through the mails, 7 may be made triable in any district through which the forbidden transportation is conducted. By virtue of a presumption that a letter is delivered in the district to which it is addressed, the offense of scheming to defraud a corporation by mail was held to have been committed in that district although the letter was posted elsewhere. 8 The Constitution does not require any preliminary hearing before issuance of a warrant for removal of an accused to the court having jurisdiction of the charge. 9 The assignment of a district judge from one district to another, conformably to statute, does not create a new judicial district whose boundaries are undefined nor subject the accused to trial in a district not established when the offense with which he is charged was committed. 10 For offenses against federal laws not committed within any state, Congress has the sole power to prescribe the place of trial; such an offense is not local and may be tried at such place as Congress may designate. 11 The place of trial may be designated by statute after the offense has been committed. 12

Footnotes

  1.  Jump to essay-1Salinger v. Loisel, 265 U.S. 224 (1924).
  2.  Jump to essay-2Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U.S. 73, 83 (1904). For some more recent controversies about the place of the commission of the offense, see United States v. Cores, 356 U.S. 405 (1958), and Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215 (1956).
  3.  Jump to essay-3United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (1998).
  4.  Jump to essay-4Brown v. Elliott, 225 U.S. 392 (1912); Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912); Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910).
  5.  Jump to essay-5Burton v. United States, 202 U.S. 344 (1906).
  6.  Jump to essay-6Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56 (1908).
  7.  Jump to essay-7United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 274 (1944).
  8.  Jump to essay-8Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 429 (1932).
  9.  Jump to essay-9United States ex rel. Hughes v. Gault, 271 U.S. 142 (1926). Cf. Tinsley v. Treat, 205 U.S. 20 (1907); Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U.S. 73, 84 (1904).
  10.  Jump to essay-10Lamar v. United States, 241 U.S. 103 (1916).
  11.  Jump to essay-11Jones v. United States, 137 U.S. 202, 211 (1890); United States v. Dawson, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 467, 488 (1853).
  12.  Jump to essay-12Cook v. United States, 138 U.S. 157, 182 (1891). See also United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 250-54 (1940); United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273 (1944).