579 F.Supp.3d 177
D.D.C.2022Background
- Criminal case charging Eric Bochene with four misdemeanors arising from January 6, 2021: violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (a)(2) and 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D) and (G).
- Bochene moved pro se after a Faretta hearing; stand-by counsel remains available.
- Bochene moved to transfer venue from D.C. to the Northern District of New York under Fed. R. Crim. P. 21, citing (1) presumed local prejudice in D.C. (many federal employees) and (2) inconvenience and travel costs if tried in D.C.; he also raised courthouse security concerns.
- The government opposed transfer, arguing prejudice was not shown, media coverage is national, most witnesses and discovery are local to D.C., and Platt factors favor retention in the charging district.
- The Court denied the motion: no extreme local prejudice warranting mandatory transfer under Rule 21(a)/due process, and the discretionary Platt factors under Rule 21(b) weighed against transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Bochene) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory transfer is required under Rule 21(a)/due process for local prejudice | No; defendant hasn’t shown "extreme" local prejudice; voir dire can protect impartiality | D.C. jury pool is biased because many are federal employees with a vested interest | Denied — no extreme prejudice; voir dire adequate |
| Whether discretionary transfer should be granted under Rule 21(b) for convenience (Platt factors) | Platt factors favor D.C.: witnesses, events, prosecution, and evidence tied to D.C.; presumption to retain venue | Trial in D.C. imposes travel, lodging, lost wages on Bochene and his NY witnesses; security concerns | Denied — Bochene failed to show undue burden; Platt factors favor retention in D.C. |
| Whether pretrial publicity requires change of venue | Publicity is national; transfer would not diminish prejudice | (Bochene did not pursue a publicity-based claim in reply; primarily argued local bias instead) | Denied — national publicity means transfer would not cure any prejudice; voir dire remains the remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (venue-transfer may be allowed when extraordinary local prejudice prevents fair trial)
- Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (change of venue prior to voir dire requires extreme circumstances; voir dire is primary safeguard)
- Irwin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (jurors must be able to set aside impressions and decide based on evidence)
- Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240 (1964) (factors to consider when assessing transfer for convenience)
- In re Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2015) (national media coverage can make venue transfer ineffective)
- United States v. Peake, 804 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2015) (mandatory transfer for pervasive pretrial publicity when community passions are inflamed)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (voir dire is key to determining appropriateness of venue change)
- United States v. Bowdoin, 770 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2011) (discusses Platt factors and presumption to retain prosecution in original district)