[colt1911]

I think the area is a famous liberal anti-death penalty stronghold (the last 6 federal death cases there have failed to get the death penalty). My question is, why did the government decide to seek the death penalty there instead of trying the case in Shanksville, PA (where UA 93 crashed)? I think the chances of getting the death penalty there would have been MUCH better...

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I believe in civil cases, the defense has greater say. Also, I believe this was a federal case so I think it gets rolled up to the district federal court.

In tort cases, the prosecution gets to choose the court, so to say. That's an important part of tort reform, not being able to select an area in some remote, irrelevant location that will be hostile to the defendants (usually big corporations) but to try the cases in the area where the alleged negligence took place.

[blau993]

You raise a very interesting point about the venue in Northern Virginia. The Eastern District of Virginia, which is the actual name for the District Court in Alexandria, has long been the Government's venue of choice for national security cases. It is convenient, the court moves its docket along very quickly (not quite the "rocket docket" of years past, but still quicker than most federal districts), and it used to be thought of as a court with fairly conservative judges and jurors. On this last point, recognize that a federal district court draws its jurors from the entire federal district, so the jury would not have been all from Alexandria and vicinity. Northern Virginia is undoubtedly more liberal than it used to be, and I wonder if that has now reached the point where the Eastern District is no longer a good place to try national security cases.