## Facts

- A Florida company sold GPS coordinates of artificial reefs detected with sonar equipment.
- Timothy J. Smith, located in Mobile, Alabama, used a web application to harvest the company’s reef-coordinate data and publicized that others could obtain the coordinates from him.
- After the company confronted him, Smith allegedly offered to remove online posts about the company in exchange for coordinates he wanted; negotiations failed and law enforcement was contacted.
- A federal grand jury in the Northern District of Florida indicted Smith, including for theft of trade secrets, based on remote access from Alabama and effects on the Florida-based business.
- Before trial, Smith challenged venue under Article III’s Venue Clause and the Sixth Amendment’s Vicinage Clause, arguing the access occurred in Alabama and the relevant servers were in the Middle District of Florida.
- The district court sent venue-related factual disputes to the jury; Smith was convicted, and the court later denied his Rule 29 motion, relying on business effects in the Northern District of Florida.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated the trade-secrets conviction for improper venue but held retrial in a proper venue was permitted.

## Issues

1. When a conviction is set aside because the government failed to prove venue, does the Constitution require an acquittal that bars retrial?
2. Alternatively, may the government retry the defendant in a proper venue consistent with the Double Jeopardy Clause?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit.
- A conviction reversed for improper venue may be followed by retrial in a proper venue.
- Venue error is treated as trial error; it does not trigger the acquittal bar applicable to evidentiary insufficiency on the offense itself.
- Neither the Venue Clause nor the Vicinage Clause supplies a special remedy that categorically forbids retrial after a venue violation.

## Legal Principles

- The ordinary remedy for reversible trial error is a new trial; retrial is generally permitted unless the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids it.
- Failure to prove proper venue is not the same as failure to prove guilt of the charged offense; it concerns the place of trial and jury district, not a substantive element for Double Jeopardy purposes.
- An appellate determination of evidentiary insufficiency on the offense requires acquittal and bars retrial; a venue error does not.
- Constitutional venue and vicinage guarantees do not mandate dismissal with prejudice once a defendant has been tried in an improper district.

## Conclusion

The Court held that setting aside a conviction for improper venue permits retrial in a proper venue, because venue error is a reversible trial defect rather than a finding of insufficient evidence of criminal liability that would bar reprosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause.


Smith v. United States, 599 U.S. 236 (2023)