This case is all about venue for offenses committed overseas. Congress has determined that the trial for such a crime “shall be in the district in which the offender . . . is arrested or is first brought.” 18 U.S.C. § 3238.
Here, Ghanem was arrested in Greece and first brought to the E.D.N.Y. He was then taken to the C.D. Ca., where the trial took place.
The Court held that Ghanem waived his right to challenge venue under Rule 29 because he did not bring a pre-trial motion on that ground. But that does not mean he waived his right to a proper jury instruction on venue: "waiver of venue does not preclude his separate jury instruction challenge" And because the district court gave an erroneous jury instruction, the Court vacated the subject conviction along with the 25-year mandatory minimum it carried.
There is a lot to this opinion. It is not easy to summarize. The Court creates a new test for determining whether an arrest is "in connection with" a charged offense. This, in turn, matters for the venue determination.
If you have a case with an offense committed overseas, this opinion is a must read.
