United States v. Lozoya, No. 17-50336 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for assaulting a fellow passenger on a commercial flight from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, holding that venue was not proper in the Central District of California. The court held that any erroneous application of the Speedy Trial Act would not have changed the outcome and that defendant did not waive her venue argument by failing to raise it until after the government's case-in-chief.
Because the parties did not dispute that the assault ended before the flight entered the airspace of the Central District of California, the panel held that venue in the district court was improper. In this case, there was no doubt that the assault occurred before the flight entered the Central District's airspace. The panel held that the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 3237(a) and the second paragraph of section 3237(a) did not confer venue. Furthermore, 18 U.S.C. 3238 did not confer venue. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Criminal Law The panel reversed for improper venue a conviction for assaulting a fellow passenger on a commercial flight from Minneapolis to Los Angeles, and remanded. The panel found it unnecessary to determine whether the government’s prolonged prosecution of the defendant constituted a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. The panel explained that because the district court did not abuse its discretion when determining that a dismissal pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act would have been without prejudice, any erroneous application of the Speedy Trial Act would not have changed the outcome, as the government would have been left free to file the superseding information on which the defendant was eventually convicted. Because venue was proper on the face of the superseding information, the panel held that the defendant was permitted to move for acquittal on venue grounds following the government’s case-in-chief, and did not waive the issue. The panel held that venue was not proper in the Central District of California in this case in which there is no doubt that the assault occurred before the flight entered the Central District’s airspace. The panel held that the first paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), which concerns continuing offenses that occur in multiple districts, does not confer venue. The
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 20, 2019.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 3, 2020.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 13, 2021.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.