A motion was made recently in a D.C. case to dismiss an indictment and transfer the case to the Southern District of Florida because of improper venue. That is a big mistake. The right to be tried in the appropriate venue is a right of constitutional proportion, but sometimes being tried in the wrong venue can work to the defendant’s advantage. The case in D.C. illustrates this point.
The motion argued that since the conspiracy to import drugs originated in Miami, the defendant is being improperly prosecuted in the District of Colombia and the case should rightfully be prosecuted in Miami. But the District of Colombia is a much better district for a defendant than Miami. If a defendant cooperates in the Southern District of Florida, the prosecutor is likely to recommend a sentence close to a third of that stated in the sentencing guidelines. However, in New York and D.C. the prosecutor is more likely to leave sentencing to the judge, who could give the defendant probation.
Moving to dismiss on the ground of improper venue is risky business. Now, the thinking may be that if the defendant was extradited to the wrong federal district the case has to be dismissed altogether. I do not see that happening. First, I do not believe that is the law. Second, only the sending country would have the right to object, and most countries, if not all, would not object as long as the receiving country did not change the charges.
I had a case where the defendant was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine to Puerto Rico, but he was being prosecuted in Washington, D.C. There may have been grounds for a motion to dismiss for improper venue, but I never considered making the motion. The district of Puerto Rico is one of the worst places to be prosecuted. Defendants there receive enormous amounts of prison time.