In the United States v. Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno case of 1998, the Supreme Court ruled that a crime can be prosecuted in any district where its criminal activities occurred. The defendant, Rodriguez-Moreno, had kidnapped a man in Texas and transported him to New Jersey via Maryland. He was charged with using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence under federal law (18 U.S.C §924(c)) which he committed while in Maryland but was tried for this offense in New Jersey. His appeal argued that his trial should have been held in Maryland since it's where the gun use happened; however, both lower courts rejected this argument. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions by stating that for purposes of venue under 18 U.S.C §3237(a), an offense is deemed as continuing through districts if its conduct elements are meant to culminate into an intended result or harm - even if some parts occur outside those districts. Therefore, because kidnapping inherently involves transportation across different locations intending harm at each stage until release or death occurs - it’s considered continuous regardless of whether all acts were done within one district.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Jacinto Rodriguez-Moreno, Justice Scalia argued that the majority's decision to uphold Moreno's conviction was a departure from traditional interpretations of jurisdictional statutes and constitutional provisions related to venue. He contended that under Article III and the Sixth Amendment, a crime must be tried where it is committed. In this case, he believed that since no part of the conspiracy or use-of-firearm charge occurred in Maryland (where Moreno was tried), there should not have been jurisdiction there. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on broad interpretation of “continuing offense” statute which allows prosecution anywhere criminal conduct occurs as an overreach beyond what Congress intended with its enactment.