Change of Venue in the Criminal Case Context

In Baltimore, there has been a change of venue motion filed in the Freddie Gray case.  Here is a little bit of information about change of venue…

The Defendant has an absolute right to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime allegedly occurred.  If the crime took place in Maryland, then the State of Maryland has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant and over the alleged crime.  The political subdivision is the county in which the crime allegedly occurred.  Maryland has 24 political subdivisions.  Just as Maryland has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant and over the crime, the county where the crime allegedly occurred has venue to try the case.  Although the Defendant has the right to be tried in the county in which the crime allegedly occurred, the Defendant also has a right to file for a change of venue.

If the Defendant files for a change of venue, the theory supporting a change of venue is that the Defendant is unable to obtain a fair trial in that venue, and is entitled to have the case moved to another venue in that same jurisdiction.  Most typically, a change of venue motion is denied.  The theory supporting denial of a change of venue motion is that, even if there has been inordinate publicity, through the use of extensive voir dire of potential jurors, the court will be able to impanel a fair and impartial jury.  Voir dire is the questions that the court asks potential jurors in an effort to discover potential biases and prejudices.  Voir dire questions posed to potential jurors must be answered by those potential jurors under oath or affirmation.  The Defendant has the right to have potentially biased or prejudiced jurors stricken so that the Defendant may obtain a fair and impartial jury.  Voir dire also entitles the Defendant to pose to the court questions, during voir dire, to help the Defendant learn what prejudices and biases potential jurors may have that may preclude one of more potential jurors from being able to decide the case based solely on the evidence that is presented at trial.  A fair and impartial jury is one that, although it may be familiar with the case, it has not formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence, and it will decide the case based solely on the evidence presented at trial.  Thus, publicity does not, by itself, entitle the Defendant to a change of venue.

However, if there is not only community saturation of information about the case, but there is community hostility toward the Defendant, the Defendant is entitled to relief toward his or her effort to obtain a fair and impartial jury.  In the hostility scenario, the Defendant may be entitled to some form of relief.  That relief may be afforded to the Defendant in one of two ways.  One method to deal with community hostility is to postpone the trial until such time as the community hostility has subsided.  One method to deal with community hostility is to move the case from that venue to another venue, in the same jurisdiction, where there is no such hostility or where there is a much lesser degree of hostility.