U.S. v. Adkinson

In prosecution on robbery charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to change venue, where said motion was filed on morning of trial, which was approximately one month after deadline for filing said motion. While plaintiff argued that change in venue was proper, where his jury pool contained only one African-American prospective juror and where his requested venue had better pool of African Americans, voir dire, as opposed to instant motion, was appropriate vehicle to address defendant’s concerns of implicit bias. Moreover, govt. was entitled to conduct trial in instant venue, and defendant failed to show that his venire was not fair cross-section of community where he had committed first robbery. Too, motion to change venue was untimely. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress cell-site data used to establish his presence near site of robberies, where: (1) said data had been collected by T-Mobile and voluntarily tendered to police; (2) instant charges concerned robberies to T-Mobile stores; (3) defendant failed to show that T-Mobile was govt.’s agent, where record showed that T-Mobile acted in its own interests to prevent more robberies of its stores; and (4) defendant consented to T-Mobile collecting and sharing his cell-site information.