Chapter 6: Change of Venue

6-1 Standard for Venue

6-2 Pretrial Publicity

    Change of venue motions are rarely granted. Pretrial publicity alone is not sufficient to require a change of venue. The question turns on whether an impartial jury can be impaneled. People v Prast (On Rehearing ), 114 Mich App 469, 479 (1982). A proper review of this question includes an independent examination of the nature of the publicity surrounding the trial, voir dire of the venire as a whole, and the individual voir dire of the jurors eventually seated. Patton v Yount, 467 US 1025; 104 SCt 2885; 81 LEd2d 847 (1984). If a potential juror says, under oath, that he or she can lay aside preexisting knowledge and opinions about the case, neither will be a ground for reversal of a denied motion for a change of venue. It is generally sufficient if the juror says he or she can lay aside his or her impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. People v Jendrzejewski, above.

    Absent a showing of strong community feeling against a defendant and a pattern of publicity so extensive and inflammatory that jurors exposed to it could not remain impartial, denial of a motion for change of venue is not error. People v King, 215 Mich App 301 (1997); People v Delisle, 202 Mich App 658 (1993), cert den 526 US 1075; 119 SCt 1476; 143 LEd2d 559 (1999).

6-3 Strategy

    It is important to make a complete and detailed record regarding publicity or other issues affecting venue, and to continue to supplement that record during trial. If you lose a venue motion based on pre-trial publicity, you should request individual attorney-conducted and sequestered voir dire on that subject. As the extent of the publicity becomes known during jury selection, you should renew your motion. If it is denied again, renew it again at the end of jury selection. Remember that failure to exhaust all peremptory challenges will almost certainly result in waiver of this issue for appeal. People v Tyburski, 196 Mich App 576, 583 n.5 (1992); aff'd 445 Mich 606 (1994).

6.2 Motion for Change of Venue [Download: WP | Word | PDF]

    STATE OF MICHIGAN

    IN THE COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF

    __________________________________

    PEOPLE OF THE

    STATE OF MICHIGAN,

    Plaintiff,

    vs No.

    Hon.

    ,

    Defendant.

    /

    MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

    , by attorney, moves this Court for a change of venue, pursuant to MCL 762.7; MSA 28.850 and MCL 600.8312; MSA 27A.8312, for the following reasons:

    1. is charged with in .

    2. There has been considerable publicity regarding this case within this county.

    3. fears that due to this publicity, and the strong sentiments of this community, cannot get a fair trial from a jury selected in this community.

    4. The nature of the charge is such that fears that cannot get a fair trial in this community due to its strong opinions about

    5. The court has the authority to change venue where "justice demands or statute provides." People v Jendrzejewski, 455 Mich 495, 499 (1997), cert den 522 US 1097 (1998); MCL 762.7; MSA 28.850.

    6. Justice demands that the Defendant's trial be held outside this county.

    For these reasons, requests that this Court grant motion for a change of venue.

    Respectfully submitted,

    _______________________

    Attorney for Defendant