Search Supreme Court Cases

PLATT V. MINNESOTA MINING & MFG. CO., 376 U. S. 240 (1964)

U.S. Supreme Court

Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240 (1964)

Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.

No. 113

Argued January 9, 1964

Decided March 9, 1964

376 U.S. 240


Respondent company, indicted for antitrust violations in an Illinois district, filed a motion to transfer the prosecution to the district of Minnesota under Rule 21(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the transfer of a multi-venue case where it would be "in the interest of justice." The trial judge denied the motion, enumerating ten separate factors, including the difficulty which he felt existed of obtaining a fair and impartial jury in Minnesota. On respondent's petition for a writ of mandamus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the improper finding as to a fair and impartial jury was the "most important" factor in the trial judge's denial of the transfer; made its own evaluation of the factors bearing on transfer; and ordered the transfer, having also decided that a criminal defendant has a right to be prosecuted in the district where he resides.


1. The District Court's use of an inappropriate factor in denying the transfer to another district of a criminal prosecution does not empower the Court of Appeals to make a de novo examination of the record and exercise a discretionary function, which Rule 21(b) commits to the trial judge, by ordering the transfer itself. Pp. 376 U. S. 243-245.

2. In determining proper venue in a multi-venue criminal case, the location of the main office or "home" of a corporate defendant has no independent significance in determining whether transfer to that district would be "in the interest of justice." Pp. 376 U. S. 245-246.

314 F. 2d 369, reversed and remanded.

Page 376 U. S. 241

Powered by Justia US Supreme Court Center: PLATT V. MINNESOTA MINING & MFG. CO., 376 U. S. 240 (1964)

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.