## Facts

- J-E Enterprises, Inc., a California distributor, sold and shipped sexually explicit materials involving minors to customers in other states, including West Virginia.
- A West Virginia customer, Clifford J. Holdren, Jr., ordered the materials by calling a California number and asking for “Joe”; a person identifying himself as “Joe” accepted orders, and items were shipped to West Virginia.
- Federal agents obtained and executed a search warrant for J-E’s California warehouse and seized records and materials, including invoices and business documents.
- Evidence tying Joseph Jesse Espinoza to the business included an invoice to Holdren bearing Espinoza’s fingerprint.
- Espinoza argued he was not responsible for J-E’s operations during the charged period, asserting a gap between resignation and later return to management, and challenged Holdren’s inability to visually identify “Joe.”
- Espinoza sought (1) transfer of venue from the Southern District of West Virginia to the Central District of California, (2) suppression of evidence seized under the warehouse warrant, and (3) government-funded defense subpoenas under Rule 17(b), requesting an ex parte showing of need.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion or violated constitutional rights by denying a transfer of venue to California after Espinoza offered to stipulate that the materials were obscene.
2. Whether the warehouse search warrant was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular, making suppression unwarranted.
3. Whether the district court’s Rule 17(b) procedures—requiring an ex parte showing and denying some subpoenas as unnecessary—violated due process or the right to compulsory process.
4. Whether admission of Holdren’s telephone-order testimony and other challenged trial rulings required reversal.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions of Espinoza and J-E Enterprises on all counts.
- The denial of venue transfer was upheld as a proper exercise of discretion; the stipulation offer was treated as untimely and did not compel transfer.
- The court upheld the validity of the search warrant and affirmed denial of the suppression motion.
- The court approved the district court’s Rule 17(b) handling, including the ex parte requirement and denial of subpoenas for cumulative or nonessential witnesses.
- The court rejected challenges to evidentiary rulings, including the telephone-order testimony, finding sufficient corroboration for jury consideration.

## Legal Principles

- Transfer of venue under Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(b) is discretionary; a defendant’s stipulation to an element does not automatically require transfer, particularly when raised late.
- A search warrant is valid when supporting affidavits provide a sufficient factual basis for probable cause and the warrant reasonably describes items connected to the suspected offenses.
- Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(b), an indigent defendant may make an ex parte showing of witness necessity; courts may deny subpoenas for witnesses whose testimony is cumulative or not necessary for an adequate defense without violating the Fifth or Sixth Amendments.
- Telephone communications may be linked to a defendant through circumstantial corroboration (e.g., business records and forensic evidence), and admission of such testimony is generally committed to trial-court discretion.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that the trial court acted within its discretion in keeping venue in West Virginia, admitting evidence seized under a valid warehouse warrant, and limiting government-funded defense subpoenas under Rule 17(b), and it found the remaining evidentiary and procedural challenges insufficient to disturb the jury’s verdicts.


United States v. Espinoza, 641 F.2d 153 (4th Cir. 1981)