United States v. Venable
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
666 F.3d 893 (2012)

- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
James Venable (defendant) was indicted by the United States Attorney’s Office (US Attorney) for the Eastern District of Virginia for being a felon in possession of firearms. Venable had originally been charged by the Richmond Commonwealth Attorney’s Office (Commonwealth Office), which was situated in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Commonwealth Office referred Venable’s case to the US Attorney for federal prosecution pursuant to a federal-state law-enforcement initiative called Project Exile. Project Exile was available only in the Eastern District. Venable filed a pretrial motion to dismiss his indictment on the ground that the US Attorney selected his case for federal prosecution because he was African American, in violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. In support of his claim, Venable alleged that the US Attorney declined to federally prosecute two White defendants, Turner and Zechman, who had stolen and sold the firearms in question. Turner and Zechman had been charged and prosecuted locally by authorities in Campbell County, Virginia. Campbell County, which was situated in the Western District of Virginia, had a stated interest in prosecuting firearm offenses within the county. In conjunction with his motion to dismiss, Venable moved for discovery to determine the criteria used by the US Attorney in making its prosecutorial decisions. The district court ruled that Venable failed to establish that he was entitled to discovery and denied the motion to dismiss. Venable appealed the denial of his motion for discovery.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Duncan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.