It’s been a bit since I’ve been able to read court opinions. But this one…. I wanted to read. It isn’t one of the big ones on the news, it’s just about Double Jeopardy rules. But it is a unanimous decision written by the odious Alito. I was curious. It’s either very simple, obvious and straightforward or it’s interesting. So Smith v. United States.
Let’s begin with Timothy Smith sounds like an asshole. First he steals data from a company (StrikeLines) and then tries to basically blackmail them for their product (fishing locations) to take it down. When StrikeLines went to the cops (shocker, right?) he was indicted for “theft of trade secrets.” The case really get to the Supreme Court because of his next tactic – “lack of venue.”
You see, StrikeLines is in Northern Florida. Smith lives in Mobile, Alabama (Southern Alabama Jurisdiction). The servers with the data he stole was in Orlando (Middle District of Florida jurisdiction). You see? These are 3 entirely different federal jursidictions so you shouldn’t charge him at all because none of them have sole purview over the crime (I’m being sarcastic). The court laughed at him too. A jury in Northern Florida found him guilty. He made the argument again.
This is where is gets a bit interesting. The appeals court jury agreed that maybe Northern Florida was the wrong jurisdiction. So Smith argued the (then dismissed) charges couldn’t be reprosecuted because it would be Double Jeopardy.
Alito states, “Therefore, the appropriate remedy for prejudicial trial error, in almost all circumstances, is simply the award of a retrial, not a judgment barring reprosecution.” (Smith v. US p7)
He then goes on for eleven pages. Seriously, this should have been no more than 10 pages total, not 20. He addresses Smith’s arguments, the first of which is that a second trial isn’t “fair” because it was so arduous to go through the first one. Seriously, Smith does not come out looking like a good person. And this is from someone predisposed to disliking the writer. For me and Alito to agree? I bet the devil just pulled out his sweater.
Alito does mention (on the argument of jury selection) that there is great common law precendence for “vicinage” (people in the vicinity) of the crime. On an off-based thought, this made me consider whether digital crimes could have a “digital” jury pool. So instead of showing up to your local courthouse, you log into a virtual courtroom. I dunno. It would get even more complicated than it already is. But just a thought.
Smith’s final argument is that a jury said it’s the wrong venue and overturned the guilty ruling so trying him again would be Double Jeopardy. HA! Alito barely spent a page on this, and most of it was citations. He had it in one line, ” A judicial decision on venue is fundamentally different from a jury’s general verdict of acquittal.” (Smith v. US p18).
So. It was entertaining. It was pretty straightforward. And I might have sprained my eyeballs rolling them so hard a few times at the arguments Smith’s lawyers put forward.
Dream by Day 