Home
Here's some research i've pulled up on the grounds for a motion to change venue in VA. Bold is mine.
These are the procedures for a motion to change venue. They are self-explanatory.
Basically, what this means is that there is a new test for a motion to change of venue. The burden is placed on the moving party (the defense) to prove that a motion for change of venue is justified. Now, they have to show more than just Sam's not getting a fair trial here. Generally, they will show the type of press coverage, local and national, and will get affidavits from people around Farmville that shows a general prejudice toward Sam getting a fair trial. Shouldn't be too hard to do.
This means that a judge can take a motion for change of venue under advisement and make the decision based on how jury selection goes.
Again, pretty self explanatory. Basically, the judge has discretion and will only be reversed if he is found to have abused his discretion, which is a high burden.
The process of selecting a jury is a factor in determining whether the judge abused its discretion in not allowing a motion for change of venue, not the result.
More procedural issues.
"Venue in a criminal proceeding in Virginia is located in the county or city where the offense was committed. A motion for a change of venue must be made at least seven days before the day fixed for trial. Either the Commonwealth or the accused may move for a change of venue."
These are the procedures for a motion to change venue. They are self-explanatory.
.A former Rule of Court provided that the only grounds for a change of venue is “that there exists in the place where the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the accused that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial.” “Merely showing extensive publicity or general knowledge of a crime or of the accused, including his criminal record, does not justify a change of venue.” Courts recognize a presumption that the accused can receive a fair trial in the locality where the offense occurred; thus, the burden to overcome this presumption rests upon the party moving for a change of venue.
The “sheer volume” of media coverage does not establish that the accused cannot receive a fair and impartial trial. This is especially true when the media accounts are “fairly accurate and temperate accounts” as distinguished from “outrageous press behavior” designed to inflame prejudices. Merely conclusory affidavits asserting that the accused cannot receive a fair trial will not justify a change of venue, whereas affidavits from a diverse group of residents which disclose the polarization of public opinion may justify a change of venue
Basically, what this means is that there is a new test for a motion to change of venue. The burden is placed on the moving party (the defense) to prove that a motion for change of venue is justified. Now, they have to show more than just Sam's not getting a fair trial here. Generally, they will show the type of press coverage, local and national, and will get affidavits from people around Farmville that shows a general prejudice toward Sam getting a fair trial. Shouldn't be too hard to do.
The difficulty or ease with which an impartial jury is selected may be evidence of community prejudice. In Shifflett v. Commonwealth, the court noted that only eight prospective jurors were excluded because of prejudice or fixed pretrial opinions, and a disinterested and impartial jury was selected in less than a day. The court should grant a change of venue when the voir dire indicates that “(1) there has been extensive publicity or widespread knowledge of the crime or the accused, (2) this publicity has generated a widespread feeling of prejudice within the community, and (3) this feeling of prejudice is reasonably certain to prevent a fair and impartial trial.”
This means that a judge can take a motion for change of venue under advisement and make the decision based on how jury selection goes.
In considering a change of venue motion, the court must look to the conditions at the time of the trial, not to the conditions at the time of the crime. The trial court's ruling upon a change of venue motion rests within the court's sound discretion and “will not be reversed unless the record affirmatively shows that there has been an abuse of discretion.” Before granting a motion to change venue the trial court may consider whether either sequestration of the jurors or a continuance will negate local prejudice and hostilities, or whether jurors should be summoned from another county or city.”
Again, pretty self explanatory. Basically, the judge has discretion and will only be reversed if he is found to have abused his discretion, which is a high burden.
It is error for the trial court to deny a motion for a change of venue solely because the court had ultimately seated an impartial jury. “It is the ease of seating the jury that is the relevant factor, not the ultimate result of that process…. Measuring the ease of impaneling a jury is an important tool in considering a request for change of venue. It allows the trial court to take into account a cross section of the community so as to understand the pervasiveness of prejudice. It also allows the trial court to keep in mind that justice must not only be fair, it must also be above suspicion, because the more difficult it is to seat a jury, the more likely it is that the public will believe the judicial process to be tainted by prejudice.”
The process of selecting a jury is a factor in determining whether the judge abused its discretion in not allowing a motion for change of venue, not the result.
If the trial court takes the motion for a change of venue under advisement pending the outcome of voir dire, it is incumbent upon defendant “to renew the motion before the jury was empanelled and sworn, or at least remind the court that it was still pending and that he wanted the court to rule on it.”
More procedural issues.
