Order Form (01/2005) Case: 1:07-cr-00227 Document #: 170 Filed: 10/27/10 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:692

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge George W. Lindberg Sitting Judge if Other

or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 07 CR 227 DATE 10/27/2010

CASE United States vs. Tomkins
TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendant’s motion for a change of venue [166] is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Defendant has moved for a change of venue, to the Northern District of Iowa, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.

Rule 21(b) provides that “[u]pon 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 and witnesses and
in the interest of justice.” Factors relevant to this analysis are:
(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.
Platt v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 376 U.S. 240, 244-45 (1964) (quoted in U.S. v. Morrison, 946 F.2d 484,
489 n.1 (7th Cir. 1991)). No one factor is dispositive; the Court should “strike a balance and determine which
factors are of greatest importance.” See Morrison, 946 F.2d at 489 n.1. This decision is one left to the
Court’s discretion. See id. at 489.

Defendant urges the Court to transfer this case to the Northern District of Iowa because attending his
trial there would be more convenient for his family and his witnesses, who are located in Iowa. In addition,
defendant argues that the interest of justice would be served by such a transfer because additional charges that
could be brought against him there could be tried with this case, instead of being resolved separately, after
this case ends.

The government responds that defendant and his stand-by counsel are located here, as well as the
documents in this case. In addition, key events in this case – the mailing or receiving of the communications

07CR227 United States vs. Tomkins Page 1 of 2

 Case: 1:07-cr-00227 Document #: 170 Filed: 10/27/10 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:693
STATEMENT
and devices at issue – occurred in the Northern District of Illinois. The government states that witnesses are
located in many places in the United States, and will have to travel regardless of where the trial is held. The
government argues that as a centrally-located major transportation hub, Chicago is the most practical location
for trial. The government also notes, and defendant acknowledges, that defendant has the use of funds under
the Criminal Justice Act to bring his witnesses to the Northern District of Illinois.

It appears that defendant’s primary argument is that this case should be transferred so that his family
members can more easily attend his trial, and so that he can see them more readily. The convenience of
defendant’s family is not a factor relevant to this analysis, however, although perhaps defendant’s desire for
family support could be considered as a special element weighing in favor of transfer under the catch-all tenth
factor. In addition, although defendant’s witnesses may be located in Iowa, other witnesses are not, and they
would likely find Chicago to be a more accessible location for trial. Some key events occurred in the
Northern District of Illinois, and defendant and many documents are located here. Disruption to defendant’s
business is not a factor, and neither party has presented evidence as to the relative conditions of the dockets in
the Northern District of Illinois and the Northern District of Iowa. It is not clear what additional possible
charges could be brought against defendant in federal court in Iowa, and the Court does not find defendant’s
argument on that ground persuasive.

The Court has carefully considered the Platt factors, and is not persuaded that the convenience of the
parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice favor transferring this matter to the Northern District of Iowa.
Defendant’s motion is denied.

07CR227 United States vs. Tomkins Page 2 of 2