Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company

PETITIONER: Platt
RESPONDENT: Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company
LOCATION: Apartment

DOCKET NO.: 113
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

CITATION: 376 US 240 (1964)
ARGUED: Jan 09, 1964
DECIDED: Mar 09, 1964

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 09, 1964 (Part 2) in Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 09, 1964 (Part 1) in Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company

Earl Warren:

Number 113, Honorable Casper Platt, Petitioner, versus Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company.

Mr. Friedman.

Daniel M. Friedman:

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.

This case which is here on a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit presents problems involving the use of the writ of mandamus to review the denial of an order entered under Rule 21 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure refusing to transfer the venue of a criminal case.

Rule 21 (b) provides that where a crime has been committed in more than one district, the District Court where the indictment is filed upon the motion of the defendant shall transfer the case to another district where the suit might have been brought if the district judge is satisfied that this transfer would be in the interest of justice.

(Inaudible)

Daniel M. Friedman:

No.

No, Mr. Justice --

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

(Inaudible)

Daniel M. Friedman:

-- this is a criminal case Rule 21 (b).

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

-- si that which might have been brought the business, I thought that was -- they're not --

Daniel M. Friedman:

No.

That's not -- there's no -- there's no question in this case.

Let me get this out of the way at the beginning, the Government conceded that this criminal action might have been brought in the District of Minnesota to its transferor's request.

There's no way issue in this case of that.

Question, it relates to the action of the District Court in refusing to transfer.

Now in this case, a motion to transfer was scrupulous filed in the District Court in the Eastern District of Illinois where the indictment had been returned.

The District Court after full consideration denied the motion ruling that it would be in the interest of justice for this case to be tried in the district there.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that one of ten factors which I'll come to in a moment which the District Court had relied on in denying the motion for transfer, was an improper fact.

It then undertook to review the rest of the record without this one factor, concluded that without this one factor, this case should be transferred to the District of Minnesota and issued a writ of mandamus directing the petitioner Judge Platt to transfer the case.

There are two basic issues in the case.

First, the propriety of the Court of Appeals using the writ of mandamus at all to review this order and secondly, which is the principal issue that we've argued in our brief, assuming that the Court of Appeals was warranted in using the writ in these circumstances, did the Court of Appeals err when upon finding that one of the 10 factors relied upon was an erroneous one undertaking itself, itself to weigh these factors in concluding where the interest of justice lie.

We contend that in the circumstances, assuming that writ was properly used when it found that there had been an improper factor relied on, it was obligatory on the Court of Appeals to remand this case to the District Court, to enable the district judge to re-exercise his discretion on the basis of the proper factors.

I would like now to turn to the facts of the case --

Earl Warren:

(Inaudible) if we find that mandamus is a proper, a proper (Inaudible).

Daniel M. Friedman:

That's correct, Mr. Chief Justice.

We asked it be sent back to the District Court to give him an opportunity to re-exercise his discretion.

And I might -- may say that if it sent back to the District Court, we don't know without this one factor whether he will or will not retain the case.

He may transfer it.

He may retain it but we think he should be given another opportunity to exercise his discretion.