United States v. Chait
1:17-cr-00105
S.D.N.Y.Dec 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Jacob Chait indicted on one count charging conspiracy to commit offenses relating to transportation and export of rhinoceros horns.
- Chait sought leave to file a pretrial motion out of time and moved to dismiss the indictment for improper venue.
- The Indictment alleges overt acts in New York, including communications and meetings in Manhattan.
- Government opposed dismissal and consented to leave to file the late motion.
- Court limited review to whether the indictment alleges sufficient facts to support venue and whether the substantial-contacts test requires dismissal or transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment alleges venue properly via an overt act in the district | Venue is proper because the Indictment alleges communications/meetings in Manhattan as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy | Chait argues those acts are insufficient because they are not themselves illegal conduct | Held: Alleged communications/meetings qualify as overt acts; overt acts need not be illegal, only shown at trial to be in furtherance of the conspiracy (venue allegation sufficient) |
| Whether the "substantial contacts" test warrants dismissal or transfer | Not applicable because plaintiff (Gov) contends venue is proper and defendant has not shown hardship; even if applied, factors favor prosecution in SDNY | Chait argues that his residence in California and purported witnesses/evidence there create hardship and insufficient contacts with SDNY | Held: Chait failed to show substantial hardship or prejudice for the test to apply; conveniences of witnesses/evidence are vague and do not justify dismissal or transfer given modern travel/technology |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Peterson, 357 F. Supp. 2d 748 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (government need only allege facts sufficient to support venue on pretrial challenge)
- United States v. Tzolov, 642 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2011) (overt act in conspiracy can be any act, innocent or illegal, done to further conspiracy)
- United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012) (identifies factors for substantial-contacts venue inquiry)
- United States v. Rutigliano, 790 F.3d 389 (2d Cir. 2015) (substantial-contacts test requires defendant show hardship or prejudice before applied)
- United States v. Ohle, 678 F. Supp. 2d 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (factual sufficiency of venue allegations is a trial issue)