United States v. Warren
989 F. Supp. 2d 494
E.D. La.2013Background
- Defendants Warren and McCabe moved to transfer venue under Rule 21(a) and Skilling due process standards.
- The government opposed; defendants replied with supplemental exhibits; motions considered together
- Court denies motions without prejudice to re-urge after juror questionnaires are received
- Court applies constitutional standard from Skilling for pre-trial venue determination, not a lower Rule 21 burden
- Analysis addresses community characteristics, media coverage, passage of time, juror conduct, Katrina-related factors, and mid-trial publicity risk
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does pre-trial publicity create a presumption of prejudice requiring transfer? | Warren argues publicity creates inherent prejudice; McCabe asserts presumption. | Skilling standard governs, not automatic presumption; seeks transfer if prejudice is great. | No presumption; assess prejudice and allow voir dire and questionnaires |
| What standard governs Rule 21(a) venue transfers? | Rule 21(a) sets a flexible standard aligned with due process. | SkillingFootnote 11 suggests a broader discretion under Rule 21. | Apply constitutional standard, prospectively; assess well-grounded fear of prejudice |
| Do community size and characteristics warrant a presumption of prejudice? | New Orleans area is smaller and potentially more prejudiced. | Eastern District population (~1.5 million) weighs against presumptive prejudice. | Population and diversity weigh against transfer; no presumptive prejudice found |
| Can juror questionnaires/voir dire cure any potential prejudice without transferring? | Intensive pre-screening is necessary to protect impartiality. | Questionnaires and voir dire are sufficient to identify prejudice; no transfer yet. | Questionnaires and voir dire deemed sufficient; no transfer yet |
| Should factors like Katrina experience and unrelated publicity affect the decision to transfer? | Katrina and related experiences biased jurors against officers. | Most jurors understand district's context; media links to unrelated matters are insufficient. | These factors do not mandate transfer at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (due process venue standard; extensive publicity not always disqualifying)
- Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (1961) (impossible standard of juror impartiality cannot be absolute)
- United States v. Wilcox, 631 F.3d 740 (5th Cir. 2011) (identifies factors for prejudice and presumption evaluation)
- Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 (1984) (retrials and publicity; other factors show no manifest prejudice)
- Mayola v. Alabama, 623 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1980) (time and voir dire considerations in prejudice analysis)
- United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1977) (careful voir dire as invaluable in gauging prejudice)