Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Case 2:11-cr-00095-SSV-MBN Document 285 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


V.
NOE JUAREZ

CRIMINAL NO. 11-95


SECTION R

OPPOSED MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE

Noe Juarez, through counsel George D. Murphy, Jr., requests pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 21(b) that his case be transferred for trial to the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division. Mr. Juarez presents the attached Memorandum in support of this motion.
The government is opposed to this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ George D. Murphy, Jr.


George D. Murphy, Jr.
Texas State Bar No. 14697990
6750 West Loop South, Suite 845
Bellaire, Texas 77401
(713) 658-1960
(713) 650-1602 (FAX)
george@georgemurphylawyer.com

Case 2:11-cr-00095-SSV-MBN Document 285 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of October, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
Opposed Motion for Transfer of Venue with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system
which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Mr. John Murphy
Assistant United States Attorney
John.murphy2@usdoj.gov
/s/ George D. Murphy, Jr.
George D. Murphy, Jr.

Case 2:11-cr-00095-SSV-MBN Document 285-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


V.
NOE JUAREZ

CRIMINAL NO. 11-95


SECTION R

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE


I.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) states:
(b) FOR CONVENIENCE. Upon the defendant's motion, the court
may transfer the proceeding, or one or more counts, against that
defendant to another district for the convenience of the parties, any
victim, and the witnesses, and in the interest of justice.

In Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing, 376 U.S. 240 (1964), the Supreme Court
listed 10 critical factors to determine whether transferring venue is in the interest of justice:
(1) location of the defendant; (2) location of possible witnesses; (3)
location of events likely to be in issue; (4) location of documents
and records likely to be involved; (5) disruption of defendant's
business unless the case is transferred; (6) expense to the parties;
(7) location of counsel; (8) relative accessibility of place of trial;
(9) docket condition of each district or division involved; and (10)
any other special elements which might affect the transfer

Id., 376 U.S. at 243-44.


While the Fifth Circuit has not formally adopted the Platt factors to determine the
appropriateness of Rule 21(b) transfers, other circuit courts commonly use them. See e.g.,
United States v. Quiles-Olivo, 684 F.3d 177 (1st Cir. 2012), United States v. Maldonado-Rivera,
922 F.2d 934 (2nd Cir. 1990), United States v. Morrison, 964 F.2d 484 (7th Cir. 1991).

Case 2:11-cr-00095-SSV-MBN Document 285-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 4

Application of Rule 21(b) is a matter of discretion for the trial court. United States v.
Walker, 559 F.2d 365, 372 (5th Cir.1977).

II. The Platt Factors


The Platt Factors weigh in favor of transfer of the case to Houston. Mr. Juarez is housed
in New Orleans after being denied bond. Some of the governments witnesses reside in New
Orleans while some live in Houston. All of Mr. Juarezs potential witnesses (primarily character
witnesses) reside in Houston.
The third Platt factor the location of events likely to be in issue weighs most
prominently in Mr. Juarezs favor. All the events at issue, that is, all the events which will be
contested in trial occurred in Houston, Texas. In fact, the government will not prove that Mr.
Juarez committed even a single act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy which did not occur
in Houston. Mr. Juarez did not set foot in the Eastern District of Louisiana during the pendency
of the alleged conspiracy.

The acts upon which the government rely for venue were all

performed by others and were tangential to the role that Mr. Juarez allegedly played.
Mr. Juarezs case is not particularly document-intensive and, as a result, relevant
documents are easily producible in either New Orleans or Houston. The location of the trial will
not impact Mr. Juarezs business as he is being held without bond.
Mr. Juarezs upcoming trial will take in the neighborhood of two weeks to complete. His
legal team and his family live in Houston.

A two-week trial in New Orleans will be

extraordinarily expensive for Mr. Juarez and, in all likelihood, will prevent his wife from
attending due to the cost and time away from her job.

Case 2:11-cr-00095-SSV-MBN Document 285-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 4

The final factors the relative accessibility of New Orleans and the docket conditions of
the relevant districts are factors which, in this day and age, are essentially meaningless. Any
location in America is relatively accessible and all federal districts, while busy, are not so
overburdened that a judge there cannot conduct a trial.
Therefore, because the most meaningful Platt factors weigh in favor of transfer, Mr.
Juarez requests that his case be transferred to Houston where all the contested acts occurred and
where the expense of trial will not be unfairly burdensome.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ George D. Murphy, Jr.


George D. Murphy, Jr.
Texas State Bar No. 14697990
6750 West Loop South, Suite 845
Bellaire, Texas 77401
(713) 658-1960
(713) 650-1602 (FAX)
george@georgemurphylawyer.com

Case 2:11-cr-00095-SSV-MBN Document 285-1 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of October, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing
Memorandum in Support of Opposed Motion for Transfer of Venue with the Clerk of the Court
using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Mr. John Murphy
Assistant United States Attorney
John.murphy2@usdoj.gov
/s/ George D. Murphy, Jr.
George D. Murphy, Jr.

Case 2:11-cr-00095-SSV-MBN Document 285-2 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


V.
NOE JUAREZ

CRIMINAL NO. 11-95


SECTION R

ORDER
The defendants Opposed Motion for Transfer of Venue to the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division is GRANTED.
.

SIGNED this

day of _________________, 2015.

__________________________________________
Honorable Sarah S. Vance