Yesterday’s U.S. v. Fortenberry (9th Cir.), was decided by Judge James Donato (N.D. Cal.) joined by Ninth Circuit Judges Gabriel P. Sanchez and Salvador Mendoza, Jr. A foreign national made illegal campaign contributions through conduit donors, leading federal agents to interview Jeffrey Fortenberry at his home in Lincoln, Nebraska, and his lawyer’s office in Washington, D.C. As a member of the House of Representatives, Fortenberry faced charges for making false statements during interviews in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 1001, but not with a violation of federal election laws. The Constitution requires that a criminal defendant be tried in the place where the criminal conduct occurred, requiring a proper venue for his trial in connection with the Section 1001 offense. The essential conduct required for a Section 1001 offense is determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it. Although an investigation occurred in California, where the accused made false statements is crucial in deciding the location of the offense for venue purposes. In short, the essential conduct of a Section 1001 offense is the making of a false statement. Therefore, the effects-based test for venue of a Section 1001 offense has no basis in the Constitution, the text of the statute, or historical practice. This has led to the reversal of Fortenberry’s conviction without prejudice to retrial in a proper venue.