position has merit and therefore dismiss Counts X, XI and XII of the superseding indictment.
We agree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in United States v. Swann, 142 U.S. App. D.C. 363, 441 F.2d 1053 (1971). There, as here, the acts of "endeavoring to obstruct justice" occurred in a district other than the district in which justice was sought to be obstructed. The Swann Court held that venue was proper only where the acts occurred. Judge Tamm's concurrence distinguished between the offenses of "endeavoring to obstruct justice", which is basically an attempt crime, and "obstruction of justice." In the latter case, Judge Tamm suggested that venue might properly lie in the district where the administration of justice is impeded. The defendant here, however, is charged with "endeavoring to obstruct justice." The acts constituting the alleged violation took place entirely within the Middle District of Pennsylvania. We have carefully considered the case of United States v. O'Donnell, 510 F.2d 1190 (6th Cir. 1975), which holds otherwise, but find the reasoning there to be unpersuasive. Therefore, we dismiss Counts X, XI, and XII of the superseding indictment for improper venue.
NOW, April 25, 1978, upon consideration of the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts X, XI and XII of the Superseding Indictment returned on December 28, 1977, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.