United States v. Miller
808 F.3d 607
2d Cir.2015Background
- Lisa Miller (a Vermont civil-union parent) removed her daughter IMJ from the U.S. in Sept. 2009, crossing from Buffalo into Canada and ultimately to Nicaragua; she did not return.
- Kenneth Miller (an Amish minister) was accused of aiding and abetting that international removal by arranging travel, coordinating helpers in Canada and Nicaragua, and providing post‑departure support.
- The government indicted Kenneth in the District of Vermont; he was arrested there after voluntarily returning from Ireland.
- The indictment charged a violation of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (18 U.S.C. § 1204) as aided and abetted (18 U.S.C. § 2).
- Kenneth moved to dismiss for improper venue, arguing § 3238 (the “high seas” statute) applies only when the offense is wholly committed outside the U.S.; the district court denied the motion and the jury convicted Kenneth.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding § 3238 may supply venue where the essence of the offense — removal from the U.S. — occurred outside the United States even though some conduct occurred inside it, and Kenneth was arrested in Vermont.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3238 can supply venue when some essential conduct occurred inside the U.S. | Government: § 3238 applies if essential conduct occurred outside the U.S.; venue proper in district of arrest. | Kenneth: § 3238 applies only when the offense was entirely committed outside any district; not applicable here. | § 3238 may apply where the crime is "essentially foreign" (essence of removal occurred abroad) even if some acts occurred in the U.S.; venue proper in Vermont (district of arrest). |
| Proper identification of the offense’s "essential conduct" for venue purposes | Government: the essential conduct is removal from the U.S. (crossing international border). | Kenneth: emphasized domestic travel to the border was part of the offense, so § 3238 shouldn't apply. | The Court: essential conduct is removing/retaining the child outside the U.S.; the border crossing and being abroad is the crux. |
| Whether venue under § 3238 conflicts with venue under § 3237(a) | Government: § 3238 can be used even if § 3237(a) also could supply venue. | Kenneth: reliance on § 3238 is improper where § 3237(a) would apply because acts occurred in U.S. | Court: § 3238 and § 3237(a) can both be available; § 3238 is not displaced simply because § 3237(a) might also apply. |
| Whether constitutional/substantial‑contacts concerns defeated Vermont venue | Kenneth: argued venue in Vermont was improper because he had no (or limited) contacts there and faced potential hardship/prejudice. | Government: Vermont had substantial connections (custody litigation centered there; Janet’s residence; foreseeable litigation there). | Court: substantial‑contacts and foreseeability supported Vermont venue; Kenneth did not preserve a substantial‑contacts attack on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) (two-step test: identify essential conduct elements and locations for venue analysis)
- United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699 (1946) (locus delicti determined from nature of the crime and location of acts)
- United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) (constitutional venue protections; trial where crime committed)
- United States v. Ramirez, 420 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2005) (venue focuses on physical conduct, not formation of intent)
- United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1985) (multi‑location crimes may permit venue in more than one district)
- United States v. Pendleton, 658 F.3d 299 (3d Cir. 2011) (applied § 3238 where the crux of the offense occurred abroad)
- United States v. Gilboe, 684 F.2d 235 (2d Cir. 1982) (dicta suggesting § 3238 limited to offenses not committed in any district; not controlling here)
- United States v. Levy Auto Parts of Canada, 787 F.2d 946 (4th Cir. 1986) (discussed scope and history of § 3238)