Case: United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno
Issue: Whether venue in a prosecution for using or carrying a firearm "during and in relation to any crime of violence," in violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1) is proper in any district where the crime of violence was committed, even if the firearm was used or carried only in a single district. Specifically, must venue lie in the district where the firearm was actually used or carried?
Facts: A New York drug dealer stole 30 kilograms of cocaine from a Texas drug distributor. The distributor then hired respondent, Rodriguez-Moreno, and others to track down the dealer, all the while holding the middleman in the transaction, Ephriam Avendano, captive. Rodriguez-Moreno and his gang pursued the New York dealer through several states, dragging Avendano along. While in Maryland, Rodriguez-Moreno took possession of a pistol and put the gun to Avendano's neck, but allowed the gang to dissuade him from shooting. Avendano escaped and called the police, who then arrested Rodriguez-Moreno.
Rodriguez-Moreno was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for conspiring to kidnap, kidnapping, and using and carrying a firearm in relation to the kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1). Rodriguez-Moreno moved to dismiss the §924(c)(1) count for lack of venue, arguing that Maryland was the only place where the government proved he had a gun, thus venue was proper only in Maryland. The District Judge denied the motion and Rodriguez-Moreno was found guilty by a jury. The Third Circuit reversed the §924(c)(1) conviction, concluding that the firearm statute is violated only in the district where the firearm is actually used or carried, and thus venue was improper in New Jersey. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address a conflict in the Circuits.
Holding: Venue is proper for a §924(c)(1) offense in any district where venue is appropriate for the underlying crime of violence.
Reasoning: Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, rejected Rodriguez-Moreno's contention that under §924(c)(1), the use or possession of a firearm must coincide exactly with the underlying crime of violence (in this case, kidnapping), and that venue is thus proper only in those districts where that coincidence occurs. Instead, the Court upheld several Circuit decisions determining that "[a] kidnapping, once begun, does not end until the victim is free." Rodriguez-Moreno's kidnapping offense started in Texas and continued through several states including Maryland. It does not matter that use of the firearm coincided with the kidnapping only in Maryland; once the two coincided at all, Rodriguez-Moreno was deemed to have used or carried a firearm "during and in relation to" the kidnapping. Thus, "[w]here venue is appropriate for the underlying crime of violence, so too it is for the §924(c)(1) offense."
Other Opinions: Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Stevens, dissented, finding that a §924(c)(1) offense is committed "only where the defendant both engages in the acts making up the predicate offense and uses or carries the gun."