October Term 2022 · Docket 21-1576

Does a wrong venue verdict bar retrial?

the side that brought the case seeks immunity from reprosecution after a venue error. The government argues the error allows a new trial.

Official caption
Smith v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Joshi argued the side that brought the case already received two remedies. He stated the side that brought the case seeks a third remedy. He claimed the Constitution requires immunity from reprosecution.

    Mr. Deger-Sen argued the government agrees on one point. He stated a judgment of acquittal is appropriate. He claimed the government is barred from reprosecution.

    Justice Jackson questioned the standard of proof for venue. She asked if it differs from element proof. She probed the consequences of a jury error.

    Justice Thomas asked how to identify a general verdict. He inquired about other constitutional errors. He sought clarity on the verdict type.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether a defendant convicted in the wrong district gains double jeopardy protection. the side that brought the case argues the Constitution demands this shield. The government disputes that claim.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 28, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants immunity from reprosecution after a venue error.

Government wants the right to retry the defendant.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the Constitution requires immunity from reprosecution.

Government argues the error allows a new trial.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked how to know the verdict was general.

Justice Jackson asked if the proof standard differs for venue.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the scope of double jeopardy protection. It determines whether a venue error ends the case permanently. It affects the government's power to retry defendants. It shapes the balance between state power and individual liberty.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON