H.R.194 - Venue Named Under Exception Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.194, the "Venue Named Under Exception Act" (VENUE Act), seeks to amend Title 18 of the United States Code, Chapter 211, concerning venue for certain offenses committed in the National Capital Region (NCR) on federal property. The bill allows indictments or information to be filed in the district of the offender's last known residence, or in the District of Columbia if the residence is unknown.
The bill also provides a right to transfer the case to the district where the defendant is domiciled, with certain limitations for multiple defendants and those not domiciled in the United States. The Act defines the National Capital Region and specifies that it applies to offenses for which a trial has not been scheduled as of the enactment date, excluding offenses already subject to specific venue statutes.
Sponsored by Mr. Self and Mr. Nehls, the bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of H.R.194 would be to modify the venue rules for offenses committed on federal property within the National Capital Region. This could lead to cases being tried closer to the defendant's residence, potentially easing the burden of travel and representation.
However, it could also concentrate cases in certain districts, potentially straining resources. The transfer provisions aim to balance convenience for the defendant with the efficient administration of justice.
Potential Benefits
- Convenience for Defendants: Allows trials to be held closer to the defendant's residence, reducing travel costs and logistical burdens.
- Fairness: Ensures that defendants are not unduly burdened by having to defend themselves in a distant jurisdiction.
- Resource Allocation: Potentially distributes the caseload more evenly across different district courts.
- Clarity: Provides a clear rule for venue in cases involving offenses in the National Capital Region.
- Addresses a Specific Issue: Targets a specific gap in venue rules related to federal property in the NCR.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for Forum Shopping: Could incentivize defendants to establish residency in certain districts to gain a more favorable venue.
- Increased Administrative Burden: Transfer provisions could increase the administrative burden on the courts.
- Uneven Caseload Distribution: Could concentrate cases in districts with high concentrations of federal employees or residents who commit offenses in the NCR.
- Exclusion of Non-Domiciled Defendants: Denying transfer rights to defendants not domiciled in the United States could raise fairness concerns.
- Complexity: The exceptions and limitations could make the venue rules more complex and difficult to apply.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the constitutional principles of due process and the right to a fair trial, as it seeks to ensure that defendants are not unduly burdened by venue rules. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, grants Congress the power to make exceptions to the rules regarding venue.
However, the provision denying transfer rights to defendants not domiciled in the United States could potentially raise concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, if it is argued that it unfairly discriminates against a class of defendants. The bill does not appear to infringe upon any other specific constitutional rights or provisions.
The bill's focus on procedural rules and venue does not directly implicate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, religion, or assembly.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).