Smith v. United States (21-1576)

argument 21-1576

Smith v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 16m 7 speakers 7 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central issue of the Smith v. United States venue argument?

John G. Roberts 0:02

We will hear argument first this morning in case twenty one fifteen seventy six, Smith versus United States. Mr. Degerson.

Unknown 0:13

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The government agrees that when it elects to take the question of venue before a jury and fails to satisfy its burden of proof, a judgment of acquittal is the appropriate result and the government is barred from seeking reprosecution. The jury instruction it agreed to in this case on JA 113 states exactly that. If the government fails to establish proper venue for any count, you must find the defendant not guilty as to that count. The government's position is that this Result should somehow differ when an appellate panel reviewing a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal finds that the jury erred in its determination and there is insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

Unknown 0:53

Put another way, the government's position is that when a jury does its job correctly and acquits, a defendant may not be reprosecuted. But when the jury fails to correctly discharge its duty, the government gets a do-over. That is what this court in Burke. Called a purely arbitrary distinction. The government has no real explanation for that result. It anchors its view on what it describes as a settled and unbroken practice of permitting retrials when a jury acquits for lack of venue. But there was no such practice. At both the common law and at the founding, the government's failure of proof as to venue resulted in a general verdict of acquittal, which carried all of the ordinary consequences of an acquittal.

Unknown 1:29

The rule the government relies on On is instead the one this court squarely rejected in ball, that a prosecutor was entitled to a second bite at the apple even after a general verdict of acquittal on any ground by challenging the insufficiency of the indictment in the first trial. But if the framers rejected that rule for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, they absolutely would have done so for violations of the venue right. As Justice Story explained, the venue right was an area where the framers sought to leave as little discretion in the government's hands as possible. There is no reason to think that the framers would have singled out venue as the one issue that goes to a jury, but the government's failure of proof does not yield an acquittal, but rather a do over.

Unknown 2:09

At bottom, an insufficiency of the evidence determination, whether by a jury, a judge or an appellate panel, must lead to a judgment of acquittal. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:20

Uh when we have normally have constitutional uh errors uh at trial, uh isn't our rule uh a a uh d a mistrial? or a retrial.

Unknown 2:34

That's correct, Ronna. But uh the venue right is, I think, fundamentally different to all other kinds of rights because what it means to violate the venue right is that the government fails to satisfy its burden of proof before a jury. So that's it's not that the defendant has to show his right was violated. The meaning of the violation is the failure to satisfy the government's burden. And then the question is, what should the consequences of that be? And the consequences of that, you know, at common law and at the founding. How is it different

Clarence Thomas 3:03

from other constitutional areas?

Unknown 3:06

It i it's it's different in that sense, that the meaning of the violation is that the government has a burden that it takes to the jury as to esta as to to establish venue. And if it fails to do that, that is a violation of the venue right. And so no other constitutional. So how do you

Clarence Thomas 3:20

know that in a general ju in a general uh verdict?

Unknown 3:25

You you don't know it a general in a general verdict, and you didn't know it at the founding. The longstanding practice has always been to take the question of venue to a jury, and that yields a judgment, a general verdict, and a judgment of acquittal. And so at the founding, venue had equal status to anything else. If for any reason, you know, if if the government failed on one of the conduct elements, if the government fails as to an affirmative defense, if the government fails as to a venue,