Venue in a federal criminal case is a constitutional matter. Article III requires trial "in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed," and the Sixth Amendment reiterates the rule at the district level. The Supreme Court has enforced this vicinage clause regularly. The question in Abouammo again tests the boundaries: whether a circuit may stretch venue to permit prosecution in a district where no offense conduct occurred, because the statute’s intent element “contemplates” effects there.
Ahmad Abouammo, a former Twitter employee, was convicted in the Northern District of California of falsifying records to obstruct a federal investigation (tied to selling private user information to Saudi operatives). The falsification itself took place in Seattle. The wrinkle is that the FBI agents had flown up that morning from the FBI’s San Francisco field office. A Ninth Circuit panel held venue in N.D. Cal. was proper, reasoning that obstruction law’s intent element “expressly contemplates” influencing a federal investigation, here effectively headquartered in San Francisco. During argument, the Court seemed skeptical of this venue stretching.
The model predicts a 9-0 reverse vote, with Alito most likely to dissent.
vote predictions
