1812

Venue in Furlough and "Walkaway" Cases

The "furlough" or "work release" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4082, provides a means of extending the limits of confinement of a federal prisoner for certain reasons consistent with the public interest and makes a failure to return to a prescribed institution or facility an escape from custody under 18 U.S.C. § 751. 18 U.S.C. § 4082(a) is consistent with a substantial body of case law holding that prisoners not in the actual custody of an institution can escape from the custody of the Attorney General as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 751. See Murphy v. United States, 481 F.2d 57, 61 (8th Cir. 1973) (escape from a county jail); Nace v. United States, 334 F.2d 235, 236 (8th Cir. 1964) (failure to return to guidance center from private employment); United States v. Taylor, 485 F.2d 1077, 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (failure to return to privately owned halfway house); United States v. Hollen, 393 F.2d 479 (4th Cir. 1968) (failure to return from work release program); Read v. United States, 361 F.2d 830, 831 (10th Cir. 1966) (failure to return from speech contest at a school); and Frazier v. United States, 339 F.2d 745, 747 (D.C. Cir. 1964) (escape from a psychiatric hospital). See also this Manual at 1810. (Legal Custody by Attorney General). The question of venue for such "furlough" or "walkaway" escape prosecutions is resolved by reliance on the well established and long standing rule that when the crime involved is failure to perform a legally required act, the place fixed for performance of the act determines the situs of the crime. See Johnston v. United States, 351 U.S. 215 (1956). In like manner, 18 U.S.C. § 4082(a) makes failure to report to the designated institution the basis for the crime. Therefore, the situs of the crime is the place where the failure to report occurred. Johnston, supra, and its progeny dictate that an inmate released to report to another institution and who fails to report as ordered must be prosecuted for that failure in the district in which he/she was to have reported. See United States v. Wray, 608 F.2d 722, 725 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1048 (1980); United States v. Dyson, 469 F.2d 735, 737 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Clark, 468 F.2d 708, 713 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Daniels, 429 F.2d 1273, 1274 (6th Cir. 1970); United States v. Scott, 424 F.2d 285 (4th Cir. 1970); Pitt v. United States, 378 F.2d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 1967); United States v. Neill, 248 F.2d 383, 384 (7th Cir. 1957); United States v. Turner, 244 F.2d 404, 406 (2d Cir. 1957); and Jones v. Pescor, 169 F.2d 853, 855 (8th Cir. 1948). [cited in USAM 9-69.500]