Smith v. United States, 599 U.S. 236

Timothy Smith accessed and took StrikeLines’ proprietary reef-coordinate data from the company’s website; he posted and attempted to trade the data.
StrikeLines is headquartered in the Northern District of Florida; the servers were located in the Middle District of Florida; Smith accessed the site from Mobile, Alabama (Southern District of Alabama).
Smith was indicted in the Northern District of Florida for, inter alia, theft of trade secrets (18 U.S.C. §1832(a)(1)). He moved pretrial to dismiss for lack of venue and vicinage; the District Court denied the motion and left disputed venue facts to the jury.
A jury convicted Smith; he moved under Rule 29 for acquittal based on improper venue, which the District Court denied (saying effects were felt at StrikeLines’ headquarters).
The Eleventh Circuit held venue was improper for the trade-secrets count but ruled that the proper remedy was vacatur and retrial, not dismissal with prejudice; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether retrial is constitutionally barred after a trial in the wrong venue or before a jury from the wrong district.
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed: venue and vicinage violations do not bar retrial, and the Double Jeopardy Clause was not triggered by reversal on venue grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether violations of the Venue Clause or Vicinage Clause bar retrial	Smith: Venue/vicinage errors inflict additional hardship and vindicate a fundamental right such that retrial is barred; acquittal/remedy should follow	Government (and lower courts): General retrial rule applies; venue or vicinage errors should be remedied by vacatur and retrial in the proper place	Held: Text, precedent, and history show these Clauses do not bar retrial; the correct remedy is a new trial in the proper venue
Whether Double Jeopardy prohibits reprosecution after conviction reversed for improper venue or vicinage	Smith: A judicial ruling that venue was improper (including a Rule 29 acquittal) functions like an acquittal and thus bars retrial under Double Jeopardy	Government: Venue rulings are procedural and do not resolve factual guilt; reversal on venue does not implicate double jeopardy	Held: Double Jeopardy not implicated because reversal for venue/vicinage error does not adjudicate criminal culpability; retrial permitted

United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (retrial normally allowed after reversal)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (acquittal based on merits bars retrial)
Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (culpability is the touchstone for double jeopardy)
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (jury acquittal is unreviewable)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (jury’s power to acquit for any reason is protected)
United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (retrial permitted when termination unrelated to guilt)
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (retrial appropriate remedy for many jury-trial right violations)
United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (venue proper where any part of crime can be proved)
Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215 (venue is not tailored for accused’s convenience)
United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361 (remedies should be tailored; retrial often appropriate)