VENUE

A place, such as the territory from which residents are selected to serve as jurors.

A proper place, such as the correct court to hear a case because it has authority over events that have occurred within a certain geographical area.

A basic principle of U.S. law is that a civil or criminal action will be decided by a court in the locality where the dispute or criminal offense occurred. This principle is expressed in the concept of venue. In accordance with this principle a civil action must be started where either the plaintiff or the defendant resides, where the cause of action arose, or, if real property is at issue, where the real property is situated. In criminal cases proper venue is in the locality where the crime was committed or where a dead body was discovered.

State and federal venue statutes govern where a case will be tried. State venue statutes list a variety of factors that determine in which county and in which court a lawsuit should be brought, including where the defendant resides, where the defendant does business, where the plaintiff does business, or where the seat of government is located.

A plaintiff may bring his action in any of the places permitted by state law. Most commonly, states allow a lawsuit to be brought in the county where the defendant resides. Choosing the wrong place is not fatal to the plaintiff's action, however. Statutes usually provide that a judgment rendered by a state court is valid even if venue is improper. If a defendant believes the suit is being tried in the wrong venue, she usually must object at the outset of the case, or she will be presumed to have waived the right to object.

In criminal cases the defendant must be tried in the venue where the crime was committed or where the body of a victim was discovered. In extraordinary circumstances, however, a court may grant a change of venue. The request for a change of venue is usually made by the defendant, but it can be made by the prosecutor. The court itself may also initiate the transfer of venue.

Changes of venue are governed by statute, but the court has great discretion in applying the statutory grounds. In Alaska, for example, the law gives the court the ability to move a case from one place to another place within the judicial district or to a place in another judicial district. Reasons for a change of venue in Alaska include the belief that an impartial trial cannot be held or that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change (Alaska Stat. § 22.10.040). The most common reason for a change of venue in criminal cases is pretrial publicity that makes it unlikely that an impartial jury could be selected in the community where the crime occurred.

Different rules regulate venue in the federal courts. The federal court system is divided into judicial districts, which can cover an entire state or, in the case of populous states, only a portion of the state. The federal venue statute (28 U.S.C.A. § 1391) refers to these districts in the way state venue statutes refer to counties. Except when a special law applies to a particular type of case, proper venue is determined by the factor that allows the case to be brought in federal court.

If the court derives its authority because the plaintiffs and defendants are residents of different states (known as diversity jurisdiction), then the proper venue is the judicial district where all the plaintiffs or all the defendants reside or the district where the claim arose. In lawsuits where the federal court has jurisdiction because a question of federal law is involved (known as federal question jurisdiction), venue lies only in the district where all the defendants reside or where the claim arose.

Venue and the Oklahoma City Bombing Case

Trial judges are generally reluctant to grant a defendant's request for a change of venue in a criminal trial. A change of venue is inconvenient to the trial participants and is often financially costly. Nevertheless, when a judge believes that a defendant cannot receive a fair trial in the place where the crime was committed, he can order that the trial be moved to another location.

The attorneys for Timothy J. McVeigh and Terry L. Nichols, who were charged in federal court with the April 19, 1995 bombing of the federal office building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, that resulted in the deaths of 168 people, sought a change of venue from Oklahoma City. The defense attorneys argued that there was substantial prejudice against McVeigh and Nichols in Oklahoma City and the state of Oklahoma, making it impossible for them to receive a fair and impartial trial.

In an order issued on February 20, 1996, Judge Richard P. Matsch agreed. The news coverage of the events surrounding the bombing, its aftermath, and the arrest of McVeigh and Nichols had been extensive in Oklahoma. Matsch noted that the Oklahoma news media had "demonized" the defendants and run news stories suggesting that they had been associated with right-wing militia groups. Because the defendants had been charged with capital crimes, Matsch was concerned that Oklahoma jurors would not be able to set aside their prejudices and emotions to determine first whether the defendants were guilty or innocent and then, if found guilty, whether they deserved to be executed.

Therefore, Matsch ordered a change of venue to Denver, Colorado. Though he acknowledged that the victims of the bombing wished to attend the trials and that a change of venue would cause them hardship, Matsch concluded that the "interests of the victims in being able to attend this trial in Oklahoma are outweighed by the court's obligation to assure that the trial be conducted with fundamental fairness and with due regard for all constitutional requirements."

In June 1997 McVeigh was found guilty of bombing the federal building and was sentenced to death. Nichols's trial began in October 1997.

further readings

Hoffman, David. 1998. The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror. Venice, Calif.: Feral House.

cross-references

Terrorism "The Oklahoma City Bombing" (Sidebar).

Special statutes set different rules for admiralty, patent, and interpleader lawsuits and lawsuits in which the United States is a party. An alien can be sued in any district in the United States, but if the alien is a defendant along with citizens, venue lies where all the citizens reside. A case transferred by removal from a state court to a federal court goes to the federal court in the district where the state action was started.

further readings

Casad, Robert C. 1999. Jurisdiction and Forum Selection. 2d ed. Eagan, Minn: West Group.

Clermont, Kevin M. 1999. Civil Procedure: Territorial Jurisdiction and Venue. New York: Foundation Press.

Davies, Martin. 2003. "Forum Selection Clauses in Maritime Cases." Tulane Maritime Law Journal 27 (summer).

Ryan, Antony L. 2003. "Principles of Forum Selection." Defense Law Journal 52 (spring).

ven·ue / ˈvenˌyoō/ • n. the place where something happens, esp. an organized event such as a concert, conference, or sports event: the river could soon be the venue for a powerboat world championship event. ∎ Law the county or district within which a criminal or civil case must be heard.

venue
A. †assault, attack XIV; thrust, esp. in fencing XVI; fencing bout;

B. †arrival XIV (rare); (leg.) place where an action is laid or to which a jury is summoned XVI; place of meeting, locality XIX. — (O)F., sb. use of pp. fem. of venir :- L. venīre COME.

venue •Askew •undervalue, value •Matthew • countervalue • argue •début • nephew • Pegu • ecu • rescue •Verdelho •menu, venue •ague • Jehu • emu • preview • Jesu •mildew • miscue •continue, sinew •in situ • barbecue • curlicue •honeydew • clerihew • retinue •avenue • residue • impromptu • shoyu •Autocue • Kikuyu • Bartholomew •interview • Montague • overview •curfew • purlieu • purview