The right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the 6th amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court has upheld that pretrial publicity can so taint a jury as to deprive defendants of their due process right. How biased must prospective jurors be to meet that standard?
US SUPREME COURT : PRETRIAL PUBLICITY
"The U.S. Supreme Court has grappled with the issue of pretrial publicity since the 1960s. In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S. Ct. 1639, 6 L. Ed. 2d 751 (1961), the defendant, Leslie Irvin, was convicted of committing six murders in a rural area of Indiana.
The crimes generated extensive media coverage. Irvin argued that the pretrial publicity prevented him from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury.
The Court agreed, noting that eight of the twelve jurors who heard the case had decided that Irvin was guilty before the trial began.
Despite these admissions, the trial judge accepted as conclusive the jurors' statements that they would be able to render an impartial verdict.
The Court held that
the substantial publicity surrounding the case made the trial judge's determination of juror impartiality erroneous.
It set out a basic rule that when pretrial publicity has been substantial, a trial court should not necessarily accept a juror's assertion of impartiality. In these cases a presumption is raised that the jurors are biased.
CONTAMINATED JURY POOL
.
In Mu'min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 111 S. Ct. 1899, 114 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1991), the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate that prospective jurors be asked in Voir Dire examinations about specific information concerning the case that they have seen or heard in the media.
The Sixth Amendment's impartial jury requirement will be satisfied when jurors do not admit during voir dire that they have been prejudiced by pretrial publicity.
((
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pretrial+Publicity))
---------------------------------------------------------
GEORGIA CODE, CHANGE OF VENUE O.C.G.A. 17-7-150 (2010)
17-7-150. Procedures for change of venue; transfer of case; appeal from denial of change of venue
(a) (1) The defendant, in any criminal case in which a trial by jury is provided, may move in writing for a change of venue, whenever, in the defendant's or defense counsel's judgment, an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county where the crime is alleged to have been committed.
Upon the hearing of the motion it shall not be necessary to examine all persons in the county liable to serve on juries, but the judge shall hear evidence by affidavit or oral testimony in support of or against the motion.
--------------------------------------
FWIW---View of a GA defense attorney
" in Georgia, the standard is not simply whether or not there has been a lot of news media attention to a case. Instead, a Georgia criminal defense lawyer must also show that, because of the pervasive publicity, it would be impossible to select an impartial jury composed of jurors who have not formed fixed opinions about the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Often, it has been my experience that a Georgia judge will not rule on a motion for a change of venue until voir dire occurs, i.e. during jury selection. There, the jurors can be questioned at length by both sides, the prosecutor and the defense attorney, in order to make, or refute, a case that an impartial jury cannot be obtained and that the trial must be moved.
((
http://whitecollarcrimeingeorgia.blogspot.com/2011/01/motion-for-change-of-venue-in-criminal.html))
-----------------------------------
IMO- if the judge denies the motion to change venue, her denial will be based on her opinion that she can seat a jury who have not formed FIXED opinions about his guilt. Bias-yes, opinions-yes, but not opinions so firmly held they can't be changed at trial.
