explaining that “where the fact of improper venue is apparent on the face of the indictment, it has been uniformly held that the objection is waived if not presented before the close of the Government’s case” (citing Wright’s Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal § 306)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “where the fact of improper venue is apparent on the face of the indictment, it has been uniformly held that the objection is waived if not presented before the close of the Government’s case” (citing Wright’s Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal § 306)
- holding that "federal courts have the inherent power to order a defendant to submit to and cooperate with examination by a Government psychiatrist where the defendant’s insanity has been made an issue in the case”
- explaining that to seize a plane with a “wrongful intent” means to act with “the general criminal intent present when one seizes or exercises control of an aircraft without having any legal right to do so.”
- concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it compelled the defendant to submit to a government psychiatrist’s evaluation
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by United States v. Darrell Eugene Lawson, 653 F.2d 299 (1981)
United States v. Clark , 728 F.3d 622, 623 (7th Cir. 2013) ; see also United States v. Bohle , 445 F.2d 54, 59 (7th Cir. 1971) ("An Indictment alleges proper venue when it alleges facts which, if proven, would sustain venue."), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lawson , 653 F.2d 299 (7th Cir. 1981).
The opinion
ENOCH, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
I agree that the procedures dictated in the majority opinion would constitute the better practice. I agree with Judge Pell on the issue of the diagnostic opinions contained in the medical records.
Nevertheless, in the context of the entire trial, the errors noted in Judge Pell’s scholarly opinion seem to me not to attain to the gravity of reversible error. Regretfully I dissent from my colleagues’ view. I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.