Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: or Become a Member
By David A. Brener
Rethinking Change of Venue in High-Profile Capital Cases
Staying Put by Using Pretrial Publicity and Morgan v. Illinois To Remove Pro-Death Jurors
In high-profile capital cases, it is standard procedure for the defense to file a Motion to Change Venue as a result of extensive negative pretrial publicity. The assumption is that when the case is moved to a jurisdiction where there is little or no adverse pretrial publicity, the prospective jurors will be uninfluenced by outside sources and will arrive at their decision based on the evidence alone, without any preconceived notions regarding the accused’s guilt or innocence.
The assumption underlying a venue-change request is that a jury pool repeatedly exposed to negative facts about the case, or the defendant, will be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict and follow the presumption of innocence, thus being more conviction-prone and more likely to recommend the death penalty. “Because the death penalty typically is reserved for only
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or email@example.com
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.