Can My Federal Case Be Moved to Another State
Welcome to Spodek Law Group. Our goal is to give you the reality of federal venue transfer - not the sanitized version law school textbooks present, not the Hollywood fiction, but the actual truth about what happens when you ask a federal court to move your case somewhere else. And the truth is going to frustrate you.
You searched this question at 2am because something terrible happened. Maybe you got indicted in a federal district 2,000 miles from your home. Maybe you realized the courthouse where your trial will happen is in a city where everybody already thinks you're guilty. Maybe you're calculating how you'll afford two sets of lawyers - one where you live, one where they're forcing you to fight - and the math doesn't work.
Here's what nobody tells you upfront: the constitutional right to be tried in the state and district where the crime occurred sounds like protection for defendants. It's actually the prosecution's weapon. When your alleged crime touched multiple districts - and federal crimes almost always do - prosecutors get to pick which one. They chose this battlefield carefully. And the courts will start from the presumption that their choice should be honored.
The Constitutional Trap Nobody Explains
Heres the thing. The Sixth Amendment says you'll be tried in the district where the crime was committed. Article III says the same thing. Sounds protective, right. Except when a federal crime spans multiple locations - wire fraud touching banks in three states, a conspiracy with phone calls across six jurisdictions, a scheme where money moved electronically through servers in god knows how many districts - suddenly theres not one proper venue. Theres five, or eight, or twelve.
Prosecutors get to choose which one. They dont flip a coin. They look at conviction rates by district. They look at which judges have reputations for harsh sentencing. They look at jury pools and demographics. They consider were their witnesses are, how convenient the courtroom is for their team. Your convenience? Your witnesses? Your ability to mount a defense without bankrupting yourself? Those are your problems.
So when you ask "can my federal case be moved to another state" - your actually asking the wrong question. The question is: can I overcome the presumption that the government's deliberate, strategic venue selection should be honored? And the answer, in almost every case since 1996, has been no.
What Rule 21 Actually Says And Why It Doesnt Matter
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21 provides two grounds for transfer. Under 21(a), the court must transfer if prejudice against you is so great you cant get a fair trial. Under 21(b), the court may transfer for convenience of parties and witnesses if justice requires it.
Read those words carefully. Under 21(a) - prejudice so great you cannot obtain a fair trial. Heres the kicker. Legal scholars have called this rule a "dead letter." It exists on paper. It functions in practice about as well as your appendix. The last time a federal court granted a Rule 21(a) motion based on prejudice was the Oklahoma City bombing case in 1996.
Think about that. Think about every federal case youve heard about since 1996. Enron. Martha Stewart. Bernie Madoff. Every terrorism case. Every massive fraud case that dominated the news for months. Not one of them got venue changed for prejudice. Not one.
Rule 21(b) - convenience - sounds more promising until you realize the defendant bears the entire burden of proving transfer is warranted. And courts start from the position that trial should happen were the government chose to bring the case. Your fighting uphill from the first sentence of your motion.
The Oklahoma City Test What It Actually Takes
On April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The blast killed 168 people. Nineteen of them were children in the building's daycare center. The explosion damaged surrounding structures - including the federal courthouse itself. Basicly every person in Oklahoma City knew someone affected. Many had friends or family members who died.
The prosecutors - overseen by then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Merrick Garland - actualy agreed with the defense that a fair trial in Oklahoma was impossible. Both sides asked for transfer. The court granted it. The trial moved to Denver.
Heres the part nobody mentions. That agreement between prosecution and defense was essential. The physical destruction of the courthouse made denial absurd. The death toll was unprecedented for domestic terrorism. The entire city was traumatized.
This is what it takes to get venue changed in federal court. Your alleged crime needs to have destroyed the courthouse and killed 168 people including children. Anything less? Your staying where the prosecution put you.
When Prosecutors Choose Your Battleground
Look, I need you to understand something about how federal cases work. The charging decision isnt just about what crime. Its about where to fight you.
A prosecutor reviewing your file sees that your wire fraud touched accounts in New York, Florida, and Texas. Thats three potential venues. They check conviction rates. Maybe the Southern District of New York has experienced judges who've seen every defense trick. Maybe the Northern District of Texas has a jury pool that tends to convict business defendants. Maybe Florida has specific sentencing patterns they like.
They make a choice. Its not random. Its strategic.
At Spodek Law Group, we've seen this pattern in hundreds of federal cases. The government spends months - sometimes years - building their case before you even know your under investigation. Part of that preparation is selecting where to fight. They analyze the terrain before the battle starts. You find out about the venue when you get arrested or receive a target letter. By then, their battleground is already chosen.
The cases are clear - once the government makes this selection, defendant's motion for transfer is directed to the sound discretion of the court. Sound discretion that almost always favors the prosecution's original choice. Its like asking a casino to move your poker game to a table where the house edge is smaller. Technicaly possible. Practically never happens.
The Convenience Argument And Why It Also Fails
Maybe your not arguing prejudice. Maybe your just saying look, all my witnesses are in California, all the documents are in California, I live in California, my family is here, why should we fly everyone to Florida for a trial that makes no sense there?
This is Rule 21(b). Transfer for convenience. It sounds reasonable. It even sounds like courts would be sympathetic. After all, the rule explicitly mentions "convenience of the parties" and "the witnesses" and "the interest of justice."
But heres the reality check. The defendant bears the burden of proving that convenience and the interest of justice compel a transfer. Not suggest it. Not make it seem reasonable. Compel it. And courts start from the observation that trial should be held where the government elected to bring the case. Your not arguing from neutral ground. Your arguing uphill against a presumption that the prosecution's choice was right.
When courts evaluate convenience, they consider factors like: were witnesses are located, access to evidence, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and practical problems with trial. Sounds balanced. But look at how it plays out. The prosecution chose this venue. That means their witnesses are probably already their or willing to travel. Their evidence is probably already accessible. The practical problems are problems for YOU, not for THEM.
Defense witnesses being far away? Thats YOUR problem. Your evidence being scattered? Thats YOUR problem. Your inability to afford a trial 2,000 miles from home? Thats definately YOUR problem, and courts have held repeatedly that financial hardship alone isnt sufficient for transfer.
The government's position in these motions is almost always: we selected proper venue, we're ready to proceed, the defendant's inconvenience doesnt outweigh the public interest in prosecuting the case where we chose. And judges, who have their own dockets to manage and their own convenience to consider, usualy agree.
Why The Skilling Case Destroyed Any Hope
If venue transfer based on prejudice was ever going to work after Oklahoma City, it would have been Jeffrey Skilling.
Skillings case had everything. Enron's collapse was the biggest corporate scandal in American history at that point. Thousands of Houston employees lost their jobs. Retirement accounts were destroyed. The company was headquartered in Houston. Every person in that city had either worked for Enron, knew someone who did, or watched their neighbor get devastated.
Media coverage was absolutly relentless. For months. National news, local news, newspaper investigations, magazine features. The name Enron became synonymous with corporate fraud. In Houston specifically, you couldnt escape it.
Skilling filed for venue change. His lawyers documented the coverage exhaustively. They showed how the jury pool was contaminated by years of negative publicity. They argued - persuasively, many thought - that selecting an impartial jury was impossible.
The Supreme Court disagreed. In Skilling v. United States, the Court held that extensive voir dire - the jury selection process were lawyers question potential jurors - was sufficient to address any prejudice. The venue stayed in Houston. Skilling was convicted.
Heres were it gets interesting. The Court acknowledged the coverage was extensive. They acknowledged Houston residents were particularly affected. But they said careful jury selection could fix the problem. If thats the standard, what case COULD ever meet the bar? Todd Spodek often tells clients that Skilling definitively proved venue transfer for prejudice is no longer a realistic option. The rule exists. It just doesnt work.
The Financial Destruction You Didnt Expect
Lets talk about what happens when your stuck in a distant federal district. Becuase the practical consequences go beyond convenience.
You live in California. Your charged in the Southern District of Florida. You need a lawyer. Not just any lawyer - a federal criminal defense attorney with experience in that specific courthouse, relationships with those prosecutors, knowledge of how that judges preferences work. Your California attorney cant provide that. Different rules, different culture, different everything.
So now you need two lawyers. Your California counsel handles overall strategy, reviews documents, prepares you for testimony. Your Florida counsel handles every appearance, every motion, every interaction with the local court. Thats two retainers. Two billing structures. Coordination costs on top of individual fees.
Your legal expenses just doubled. And thats before we count travel.
Every court appearance requires a flight. Pre-trial motions. Status conferences. Suppression hearings. The trial itself, which could run weeks. Your paying for airfare, hotels, meals - not just for yourself but potentially for family members who need to be their for support. Your losing income because you cant work while your sitting in a Florida courtroom.
The consequence cascade looks like this. Charged in unfavorable district. Must hire local counsel. Legal fees double. Depleted funds for investigation, expert witnesses, the actual defense work. Settlement pressure intensifies because you cant afford to fight anymore. Plea deal that you wouldnt have taken if venue was closer and costs were managable. The venue itself becomes coercive.
Sound familiar? This is how the system works.
What The Courts Wont Admit About Jury Pools
Rule 21(a) requires showing prejudice so great that fair trial is impossible. Courts have interpreted this to mean you must prove the entire jury pool is contaminated. Not some jurors. The entire pool.
But heres what actually happens when you try to make that showing. You document media coverage. Court says volume of coverage alone isnt enough. You show polling data indicating community bias. Court says polls dont prove individual jurors are prejudiced. You point to the nature of the coverage - inflammatory, one-sided, assumption of guilt. Court says we'll handle that through voir dire.
Voir dire. The process were attorneys question potential jurors to identify bias. Courts treat this as the universal solvent for prejudice concerns. Doesnt matter how much coverage their was. Doesnt matter that people have formed opinions. Were going to ask each juror if they can be fair, and when they say yes, well take their word for it.
The problem? People dont know their own biases. They genuinly believe they can set aside what theyve heard and decide based only on evidence. Psychological research shows this belief is often wrong. Implicit bias operates below conscious awareness. But courts dont care about psychological research. They care about managing their dockets and avoiding the complications of transferred cases.
So you strike obviously biased jurors using your peremptory challenges. You run out of challenges before you run out of biased jurors. Subtle bias remains. Trial proceeds. Conviction follows. And your appeal fails because, technicaly, venue was proper and you had a chance to select the jury.
The Trump Cases Prove The Point
If you think high-profile defendants with unlimited resources can force venue changes, lets look at recent history.
When Donald Trump was indicted in the January 6 case, he immediately announced on social media that he would seek a venue change. He described the Washington D.C. jury pool as "over 95% anti-Trump" and suggested West Virginia would be more "unbiased." Legal experts uniformly said if he filed such a motion, he would almost certainly lose it. The D.C. jury pool is large enough, courts would say, that careful voir dire can identify impartial jurors.
In the New York hush money case, Trump's attorneys tried multiple approaches. They sought to move the case from state court to federal court - denied. They sought to change the venue within New York - denied. They sought to postpone the trial while venue issues were considered - denied.
These denials came despite Trump having access to the best lawyers money can buy, despite obvious partisan feelings about him in certain jurisdictions, despite his ability to fund endless appeals and motions. If a former President with unlimted legal resources cant get venue changed, what chance does an ordinary defendant have?
The pattern is clear. Whether your a former President, a Fortune 500 executive like Skilling, or an ordinary person caught in a federal investigation - the system protects prosecutorial venue selection. The rules on the books say transfer is possible. The practice says its not going to happen.
The Strategic Reality Experienced Attorneys Understand
So what do you actually do? How do experienced federal defense attorneys approach venue when they know the motion will probably fail?
First, you file anyway. The motion to transfer preserves the issue for appeal. If you dont raise it at the district court level, you cant argue it later. So even when the probability of success is nearly zero, the motion gets filed. Its about building a record, not winning the motion.
Second, you use the motion to learn. Preparing a serious venue transfer motion requires investigating the jury pool, researching media coverage, documenting your witnesses and evidence locations. This work informs your overall defense strategy. You learn things about your case by doing this research that you need to know anyway.
Third, you occasionaly get indirect benefits. A judge who reads a well-documented venue motion might not transfer the case, but might be more carefull about jury selection. They might grant more liberal use of questionnaires. They might allow more challenges for cause. The motion can influence the trial even when it doesnt change the location.
Fourth, and this is the brutal reality - you plan for defending the case where it is. You find the best local counsel in that district. You investigate that specific jury pool. You learn that judges tendancies and preferences. You build your defense for that courtroom, not for some hypothetical transfer that isnt coming.
At Spodek Law Group, this is what experience teaches. We dont waste clients time on false hope. We explain what venue transfer actualy requires, why its almost never granted, and what practical steps we take given that reality. Knowing the truth isnt depressing - its liberating. It lets you focus resources were they matter instead of chasing legal mirages.
What This Means For Your Case Right Now
If your reading this, your probably already charged in a federal district that feels wrong. Maybe its across the country. Maybe its in a city were your case made news. Maybe you just know, instinctively, that you wont get fair treatment their.
Heres the reality. Filing a venue transfer motion is almost always advisable. Not because it will succeed - it probably wont. But because preserving the issue for appeal is essential. Because gathering the documentation for the motion forces your defense team to understand the landscape. Because occasionally, very occasionally, pressure from a well-crafted motion influences other aspects of the case even when the motion itself is denied.
The question isnt whether to try. The question is how to build the strongest possible defense while acknowledging that your probably fighting in the venue the prosecution chose. That means local counsel who knows the court. That means investigation into the jury pool regardless of whether transfer happens. That means realistic financial planning for a distant prosecution.
At Spodek Law Group, we understand this frustration. We've represented clients who should have had their cases transferred and didnt. We've watched the system protect prosecutorial venue selection while pretending the Constitution protects defendants. We know what your facing.
The clock started when you learned about these charges. Every day you wait to build your defense is a day the prosecution uses to strengthen their case. They had months or years. You have weeks or days.
The next 48 hours determine the next several years of your life. Call 212-300-5196. We can help you understand your options even when those options are more limited than the law books suggest they should be. Thats the reality - and we'd rather you know it than waste time on false hope.
