moved or into which they shall have been brought by such offender." 5

§ 525d. Place of trial for capital offenses. The Judicial Code provides: "The trial of offenses, punishable with death shall be had in the county where the offense was committed when that can be done without inconvenience." 1

This section does not apply to offenses committed upon the high seas or the Guano Islands. It has been doubted whether this section applies to a crime committed in a place within the. exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.3

The statute does not contemplate a transfer of the cause to another court and the court where the indictment was found does not lose jurisdiction by ordering such a transfer for trial.4

It has been said, that, since it is no longer necessary to draw the jury from the county, this rule is of less importance than formerly; and that the place of trial is to be determined by the discretion of court upon considerations of inconvenience.

If a party goes to trial without demanding that he be tried. in the county where the offense was committed, he waives his rights under this statute.7

"In all cases of murder or manslaughter the crime shall be deemed to have been committed at the place where the injury was inflicted, or the poison administered, or other means employed which caused the death, without regard to the place where the death occurs. 118 An indictment for murder must aver the place of death, but it is not necessary that an indictment which charges a capital offense shall allege the county where a crime was committed, provided that the judicial district of its commission is averred.10

5 Ch. 50, § 1, 37 St. at L. 670, Comp. St., § 8603.

§ 525d. 1 Jud. Code, § 40, 36 St. at L. 1087; re-enacting U. S. R. S., § 729.

2 Criminal Code, § 272, ch. 321, 35 St. at L. 1142, Comp. St., § 10445, 20 Op. A. G. 590. Supra, § 525a.

3 U. S. v. Cornell, 2 Mason 91.

4 Brown v. U. S., C. C. A., 257 Fed. 46.

5 U. S. v. Cornell, 2 Mason 91; U. S. v. Wilson, Baldwin, 78.

6 U. S. v. Cornell, 2 Mason 91; Brown v. U. S., C. C. A., 257 Fed.

46.

7 U. S. v. Cornell, 2 Mason 91.

8 Criminal Code, § 336, ch. 321, 35 St. at L. 1152, Comp. St., § 10510. 9 Ball v. U. S., 140 U. S. 118, 35 L. ed. 377.

10 U. S. v. Wilson, Baldwin, 79.

§ 525e. Place of trial for conspiracies. In the case of a conspiracy, where the overt acts are committed in different districts, the accused may be punished in either; 1 even in one where they have never been; 2 or in the place where the conspiracy was formed.8

A conspiracy to commit fraud by the use of the mails may be indicted wherever a letter has been mailed for such purpose. An indictment for a conspiracy to conceal a bankrupt's assets from his trustee may be tried in the district where the voluntary petition in bankruptcy was filed, although none of the goods were there concealed; 5 but an indictment for concealment of such property can be tried only in a district where part of the property was concealed.6

An indictment for a conspiracy to attach in the waters of the United States to munition ships infernal machines to explode while on the high seas may be tried within the United States, at the place of such attachment.7

An indictment for a conspiracy to defraud the United States by means of the bribery of an employee of the government cannot be tried at the place where drafts given as a bribe were paid when the employee received these and parted with the title thereto in another district where the conspiracy was formed and performed.8

§ 525f. Place of trial of offenses against the Prohibition Law. By the act of October 28, 1919: "In case of a sale of liquor where the delivery thereof was made by a common or other carrier the sale and delivery shall be deemed to be made in the county or district wherein the delivery was made by such car

§ 525e. 1 Lipman v. U. S., C. C. A., 219 Fed. 882; Easterday v. MeCarthy, C. C. A., 256 Fed. 651.

2 Hyde v. U. S., 225 U. S. 347, 56 L. ed. 1114; U. S. v. Campbell, 179 Fed. 762; U. S. v. Wells, C. C. A., 192 Fed. 870, certiorari denied 225 U. S. 714, 56 L. ed. 1269; U. S. v. Reddin, 193 Fed. 798; U. S. v. Linton, 223 Fed. 677. Supra, § 506s.

3 De Orozco v. U., S., C. C. A., 237 Fed. 1008; Shea v. U. S., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 97.

4 Shea v. U. S., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 97.

5 Gretsch v. U. S., C. C. A., 231 Fed. 57.

6 Gretsch v. U. S., C. C. A., 242 Fed. 897.

+Daeche v. U. S., C. C. A., 250 Fed. 566.

8 Salas v. U. S., C. C. A., 234 Fed. 842, reversing U. S. v. Burke, 218 Fed. 83.

rier to the consignee, his agent or employee, or in the county or district wherein the sale was made, or from which the shipment was made, and prosecution for such sale or delivery may be had in any such county or district."1

The offense of knowingly shipping from one State to another a package containing intoxicating liquor which is not labeled, so as plainly to show the name of the consignee, the nature of its contents, and the quantity therein contained,2 may be punished in the district of shipment, and in the district into which the goods are shipped.

§ 525g. Place of trial of offenses against the Pure Food and Drugs Act.

Under the Pure Food and Drugs Law,1 jurisdiction exists in the court of the district from which the goods were shipped, although the defendant does not there reside. The provision in the statute for the seizure of the adulterated or misbranded goods in any district where they may be found relates to civil proceedings only and does not affect the jurisdiction of a criminal prosecution.3

The place of the offense like any other fact may be proved by evidence, direct, indirect, or circumstantial.a

§ 525f. 141 St. at L. 305, ch. —, title II, § 31, Comp. St., § 101381⁄2r; supra, § 506q.

2 Criminal Code, § 240, ch. 321, § 240, 35 St. at L. 1137, Comp. St., § 10410.

3 U. S. v. Freeman, 239 U. S. 117. § 525g. 1 Act of June 30, 1906, ch. 3915, § 2, 34 St. at L. 768, Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1354.

2 U. S. v. J. L. Hopkins & Co., 199 Fed. 649.

3 Ibid.

4 Wallace v. U. S., C. C. A., 243 Fed. 300, 305, 306. "It is earnestly contended for plaintiff in error that the record fails to disclose any proof of the venue and that therefore there should be a reversal of the judgment. Careful perusal of the record reveals that no witness testified in so many

words that the alleged conspiring and selling and giving away occurred within the Northern district of Illinois. While direct testimony of such fact (in most cases easily available) is desirable for greater certainty, yet venue, like any other fact, may be shown by evidence, direct, indirect or circumstantial. On cross-examination Davis was specifically asked the various places in Chicago where he had lived, and he named different streets which in his own testimony, as well as in the testimony of other persons, were referred to in connection with the acts charged, one of the streets being the same one on which it was testified Wallace's drug store was located; indeed, Davis testified that one of the places where he lived in Chicago, was

§ 525h. Right to a public trial. By the Sixth Amendment the accused must enjoy the right to a "public trial."

"The requirement of a public trial is for the benefit of the accused; that the public may see he is fairly dealt with and not unjustly condemned, and that the presence of interested spectators may keep his triers keenly alive to a sense of their responsibility and to the importance of their functions." 1

"The provision is one of the important safeguards that were soon deemed necessary to round out the Constitution, and it was due to the historical warnings of the evil practice of the Star Chamber in England. The corrective influence of public attendance at trials for crime was considered important to the liberty of the people, and it is only by steadily supporting the safeguard that it is kept from being undermined and finally destroyed. As the expression necessarily implies, a public trial is a trial at which the public is free to attend. It is not essential to the right of attendance that a person be a relative of the accused, an attorney, a witness, or a reporter for the press, nor can those classes be taken as the exclusive representatives of the public. Men may have no interest whatever in the trial, except to see how justice is done in the courts of their country. The qualifications of the broad scope of the constitutional provisions and of like provisions in the Constitutions of the State are few and are based upon considerations of public morals and peace and good order in the courtrooms.” 2

in such close proximity to Wallace's drug store that from it he could see into the store, and that in the telephone booth of that store, and sometimes in the cellar, Wallace would pass to Davis cocaine which Davis was to dispose of. Defendant's character witness Whitaker testified he knew Wallace was in the drug business at Thirty-Ninth and State streets. Taylor testified to working for the city of Chicago, and to getting packages of drugs from Wallace's drug store on his way to work. With the various streets thus identified by some evidence as

being in the city of Chicago, it was not necessary, in order to prove the venue, that each of the witnesses who hereafter referred to the same streets in connection with incriminating acts occurring thereon must again identify the streets as being in Chicago. The record fully warranted the jury in finding that the venue of the offense was proved in Chicago, which is in the First revenue district of Illinois.''

§ 525h. 1 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 6th ed., ch. X, p. 379.

2 Davis v. U. S., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 394, 395, 396.

So long as there is space in the courtroom without undue crowding the public should be freely admitted. There can be no discrimination except for litigant attendants of the court, witnesses, and members of the bar; provided that those applying for admission are orderly and not in such a condition to be a menace to public health.5 Discriminations in favor of relatives of the accused, friends of the accused,7 and of respectable men selected by the marshal have been held to be a denial of the right to a public trial. When the courtroom is overcrowded, it can be cleared; and disorderly spectators may be excluded; 10 but after the clearance there can be no discrimination between those re-admitted, except as is above described.11

Cases where the testimony was of such an obscene or indelicate nature that witnesses were likely to be embarrassed in giving it in public have by some courts been held to be an exception to the general rule.12 Some courts have limited this

3 U. S. v. Davis, C. C. A., 247 Fed. 394.

4 Reagan v. U. S., C. C. A., 202 Fed. 488, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 583; Callahan v. U. S., C. C. A., 240 Fed. 683; Benedict v. People, 23 Colo. 126, 46 Pac. 637; State v. Callahan, 100 Minn. 63, 110 N. W. 342; State v. Nyhus, 19 N. D. 326, 124 N. W. 71, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 487.

5 Lide v. State, 133 Ala. 43, 31 So. Rep. 953; People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 222, 14 Pac. 849; Tilton v. State, 5 Ga. App. 59, 62 S. E. 651; Grimmett v. State, 22 Tex. App. 36, 2 S. W. 631, 58 Am. Rep. 630.

6 Davis v. U. S., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 394.

7 People v. Yeager, 113 Mich. 228, 71 N. W. 491.

8 People v. Murray, 89 Mich. 276, 50 N. W. 995, 28 Am. State Rep. 294, 14 L. R. A. 809.

9 Benedict v. People, 23 Colo. 126, 46 Pac. 637; Myers v. State, 97 Ga. 76, 25 S. E. 252; Jackson v. Commonwealth, 100 Ky. 239, 38 S.

W. 422, 1091, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 795, 66 Am. St. Rep. 336; State v. Callahan, 100 Minn. 63, 110 N. W. 342; State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542, 5 S. W. 257, 330; Kugadt v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. 681, 44 S. W. 989.

10 Lide v. State, 133 Ala. 43, 31 So. Rep. 953; People v. Kerrigan, 73 Cal. 222, 14 Pac. 849; Tilton v. State, 5 Ga. App. 59, 62 S. E. 651; Grimmett v. State, 22 Tex. App. 36, 2 S. W. 631, 58 Am. Rep. 630.

11 Davis v. U. S., C. C. A., 247 Fed. 394.

12 Reagan v. U. S., C. C. A., 202 Fed. 488, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 583; Callahan v. U S., C. C. A., 240 Fed. 683; Benedict v. People, 23 Colo. 126, 46 Pac. 637; State v. Nyhus, 19 N. D. 326, 124 N. W. 71, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 487. See State v. Callahan, 100 Minn. 63, 110 N. W. 342; Grimmett v. State, 22 Tex. App. 36, 2 S. W. 631, 58 Am. Rep. 630; State v. Hensley, 75 Ohio State 255, 79 N. E. 462, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 277. Contra, State v. Osborne, 54