Smith v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Criminal Law

599 U.S. 236 (2023)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawstatutory interpretationVenue ClauseVicinage ClauseDouble Jeopardy Clauseretrialtrial errorimproper venue

Facts

Smith, a software engineer from Mobile, Alabama, surreptitiously obtained geographic coordinates from StrikeLines' website and later posted online that he had the company's data. He was indicted in the Northern District of Florida for, among other charges, theft of trade secrets. Before trial, he argued venue was improper there because he accessed the data from Mobile, Alabama, and the servers storing the data were in Orlando, Florida. After the jury convicted him, he renewed his venue objection in a Rule 29 motion, but the district court denied relief; the court of appeals later agreed venue was improper on the trade-secrets charge.

Issue

When a conviction is reversed because the defendant was tried in an improper venue and before a jury drawn from the wrong district, does the Constitution require acquittal or otherwise bar retrial? Relatedly, does such a reversal trigger the Double Jeopardy Clause?

Rule

Except where the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids it, a defendant whose conviction is reversed for trial error may be retried in the normal course. Violations of the Venue Clause and the Vicinage Clause are not exceptions to that rule, and reversal on those grounds does not trigger double jeopardy because it does not resolve the defendant's criminal culpability.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal jury in the District of Nevada convicts Elena Torres of a computer-fraud offense. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit concludes that all conduct necessary to establish venue occurred in Arizona, vacates the conviction for improper venue, and remands. The government files a new indictment in the District of Arizona based on the same conduct.

Elena moves to dismiss the Arizona case on the ground that a second prosecution would be unconstitutional because she already endured one full trial in the wrong place. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that, except where double jeopardy forbids it, a defendant who obtains reversal of an unsatisfied conviction may be retried in the normal course. A venue violation is not an exception. The Venue Clause specifies where trial must occur, but it does not require acquittal or dismissal with prejudice as the remedy. Because the appellate ruling did not resolve Elena's criminal culpability, retrial in Arizona is constitutionally permitted.