United States v. Gloria Naranjo
Docket: 19-2850
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; January 11, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Gloria Naranjo's appeal following her conviction for conspiracy to distribute narcotics, specifically heroin and cocaine, under 21 U.S.C. § 846. The primary legal issue is whether phone calls made by her co-conspirator, Patrick Free, to an undercover FBI agent establish proper venue for the conspiracy charge in the Southern District of New York. The court concluded that venue is appropriate in the district where the calls were made, barring any unfairness or hardship to the defendant or artificial venue creation by the Government. Naranjo contended that the connection to the Southern District was insufficient to justify venue. The court noted that the Government must prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence, as per Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and relevant statutes. It confirmed that venue for conspiracy charges is valid in any district where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred, irrespective of the defendant's physical presence. The court affirmed the District Court's judgment, establishing that the evidence of Free's communications with the agent provided sufficient basis for venue in the Southern District of New York. Phone calls can be considered overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy, establishing venue in a district if they serve the conspiracy's aims. In *United States v. Friedman*, the court ruled that phone calls from Long Island to Manhattan to arrange a robbery in Brooklyn sufficiently established venue in the Southern District of New York, regardless of the recipient's status as a co-conspirator. It is emphasized that phone calls alone, if aimed at furthering a conspiracy, are adequate to establish venue without needing to meet a higher threshold of significance. In the current case, while Naranjo did not enter the Southern District, her co-conspirator Free made multiple phone calls to an undercover agent in Manhattan, discussing narcotics transactions. These interactions supported the venue's establishment. Naranjo's claim that the government artificially created venue was dismissed, as Free independently sought the agent in the Southern District. Additionally, the court noted that public policy concerns regarding fairness in trial locations were not relevant in this case; Naranjo did not assert any claims of unfairness related to her trial location, nor did she argue that the prosecution was motivated by a strategic advantage in the Southern District. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed.