United States v. Davis
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16505
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Davis and Gunn were convicted in SDNY after a trial of Hobbs Act conspiracy to rob drug dealers, an attempted Hobbs Act robbery in Elmont, NY, and related firearms offenses alleging use of firearms during the Elmont and Wickham robberies; they were also convicted of conspiracy to traffic over 100 kg of marijuana.
- The Elmont robbery targeted Robert DeLeon’s residence in Elmont (EDNY); Davis entered the home, Laing was killed, and a firearm was used in the course of the attempted robbery.
- Needham provided help by acquiring DeLeon’s license plate and coordinatinglookouts, with the license plate location tying DeLeon’s car to Elmont.
- Davis’s challenge focused on venue for Counts Two (Elmont Hobbs Act attempted robbery), Four and Five (Elmont §924(c) and §924(j) fires), arguing SDNY lacked proper venue; the government argued venue lay in SDNY because key acts occurred there and effects on interstate commerce were foreseeable.
- The district court had held venue proper in SDNY for the Elmont-related counts, relying on Needham’s Bronx procurement and Davis’s actions in SDNY to advance the crime; the court tied venue to both acts in EDNY and anticipated effects in SDNY.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue for the Elmont Hobbs Act counts was proper in SDNY | Davis argues SDNY lacks venue for Counts Two, Four, Five | Govt contends venue lies where acts occurred and effects felt, incl. SDNY | Venue proper in SDNY for the Elmont counts |
| Role of underlying crime venue to governing firearms counts | Venue should hinge on location of underlying violence | If underlying Hobbs Act venue is proper, related §924 counts follow | SDNY venue proper for Elmont §924 counts as underlying crime venue is proper |
| Standards for establishing venue (locus delicti and substantial steps) | Venue cannot be based on mere foreseeability | Conduct, steps, and foreseeability support venue in the district where the acts began or advanced | Centering on locus delicti and substantial step, SDNY venue is proper for Elmont counts |
| Whether Davis’s actions in EDNY and subsequent SDNY coordination suffice to establish venue | Venue should be limited to EDNY where the acts began | Davis’s telephone coordination in SDNY advanced the crime and connected districts | Yes; substantial steps in EDNY and coordinated efforts in SDNY establish venue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) (two-step venue analysis: conduct and location of acts; district where begun/continued/completed; foreseeability of venue)
- United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477 (1985) (requires meaningful connection and foreseeability in choosing venue; substantial contacts)
- United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108 (2007) (venue may lie where acts in furtherance would occur; foreseeability and substantial steps)
- United States v. Tzolov, 642 F.3d 314 (2011) (venue proper for offenses with multiple offenses by location and effects)
- United States v. Ivic, 700 F.2d 51 (1983) (substantial step concept in Hobbs Act context)