Rule 20 Transfers of Prisoners From the District For
Rule 20, Fed. R. Crim. P., provides for the transfer of criminal
among districts for the limited purposes of acceptance of guilty or nolo
contendere pleas and sentencing. The rule is intended to accord a defendant
opportunity to be relieved of the hardship of being removed to the district
the prosecution is pending. Advisory Committee on Rules, Note to Rule 20;
United States v. Cushman, 830 F. Supp. 966 (N.D. Tex. 1993); Hutto
United States, 309 F. Supp. 489 (D.S.C. 1970).|
Under Rule 20, the transferee court acquires limited jurisdiction
take a guilty or nolo contendere plea and pronounce sentence only. A plea
guilty, after transfer, ends the transferee court's jurisdiction and
transfer of the matter back to the original jurisdiction. A defendant's
statement that he or she wished to plead guilty or nolo contendere shall not
used against him or her. The refusal of a transferee court to receive a nolo
contendere plea does not remove its jurisdiction if the defendant then
plea of guilty. United States v. French, 787 F.2d 1381 (9th Cir.
Singleton v. Clemmer, 166 F.2d 963 (D.C.Cir.1948). One court held
only a plea of not guilty can oust the jurisdiction of the transferee court
a Rule 20 proceeding, and that a Rule 20 transfer cannot be revoked by the
withdrawal by both United States Attorneys of consent to transfer even
plea has not yet been entered by the defendant. United States v.
107 F. Supp. 680 (D.Nev. 1952). See also United States v.
Roberts, 618 F.2d 530 (9th Cir.1980). But see, Hutto
United States, 309 F. Supp. 489 (transferee court, having jurisdiction
consent of both United States Attorneys but before papers transferred or
received by the transferee court, relinquished jurisdiction by allowing its
United States Attorney to withdraw consent); see also
States v. French, 787 F.2d 1381; In re Richard Arvedon, 523 F.2d
(1st Cir. 1975) (a transferee court may reject an involuntary or improvident
of guilty, but a guilty plea attributed only to defendant's desire not to
to the indicting district, is, by itself, an impermissible reason to refuse
plea and to return the case).
Rule 20 has been held to be constitutional against challenges that
Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment
provide that the trial shall be held in the State where the crime has been
committed. In each case, place of venue has been held to be a personal
which may be waived. Jackson v. United States, 489 F.2d 695 (1st
Cir.1974; Yeloushan v. United States, 339 F.2d 533 (5th Cir. 1964);
Hilderbrand v. United States, 304 F.2d 716 (10th Cir. 1962).
[cited in USAM 9-14.000]