## Facts

- James Chapman was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia with conspiracy to distribute and dispense various illegal drugs.
- The government’s proof tied Chapman’s alleged conduct to locations described at trial as being in and around Cartersville and Bartow County, Georgia.
- To address venue, the district court instructed the jury that Bartow County and the City of Cartersville are located in the Northern District of Georgia, effectively taking judicial notice of that geographic fact.
- The jury found Chapman guilty.
- Chapman appealed, arguing that the district court’s instruction removed venue from the jury’s consideration and violated due process.

## Issues

1. Whether a district court may instruct the jury—based on judicial notice—that a named county and city are located within the federal judicial district where the prosecution is brought, when venue depends on that geographic relationship.
2. Whether telling the jury that the county and city are within the charging district improperly resolves the venue question for the jury in a way that violates due process.
3. If the venue-related instruction was erroneous, whether any error was harmless in light of the evidence at trial.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Chapman’s conviction.
- The court concluded that the district court did not violate Chapman’s due-process rights by instructing the jury, as a matter of indisputable geography, that Bartow County and Cartersville are within the Northern District of Georgia.
- The court reasoned that the instruction did not decide venue by itself; the jury still had to determine whether the charged conduct occurred in the places described at trial.
- The court further held that, even assuming any mistake in the way the court handled judicial notice, the record established venue, so any error did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- In a federal criminal case, venue must be established in the district where the offense was committed, and the government bears the burden to prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Venue commonly presents a fact question for the jury, but courts may take judicial notice of geographic facts that are not subject to reasonable dispute, such as where a city or county lies within a federal judicial district.
- A court’s acceptance of an indisputable geographic premise does not improperly direct a verdict on venue when the jury remains responsible for finding where the relevant acts occurred.
- An error related to a venue instruction does not require reversal if the trial evidence shows that venue was established and the instruction did not affect the outcome.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Chapman’s drug-conspiracy conviction, holding that the trial judge could treat as an indisputable geographic fact that Bartow County and Cartersville lie within the Northern District of Georgia, and that the jury still decided whether the criminal conduct occurred in those locations; in any event, the evidence supported venue, making any possible instructional misstep harmless.


United States v. Chapman, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8947 (2017)