Time May Change Me. . . But Judges Don’t Change Venue

[WSJ_law_blog]

David Bowie may value changes, but it seems a lot of judges don’t.

Otherwise, changes of venue might not be so granted so rarely, a topic explored in the WSJ’s Law Journal today. (Click here for the story.)

While the piece looks at a variety of cases, for now, we’re going to focus on one, originally slated to go to trial in the Northern District of Iowa. The case gives a good example of how a judge can be persuaded to change the venue — if the defense attorneys can build strong evidence of pervasive community bias due to media attention.

The case involves the trial of Agriprocessors, owner of one of the largest kosher slaughterhouses in the country, which was the subject of a large immigration raid in 2008 in Postville, Iowa. The company and four of its managers are facing criminal charges related to allegedly conspiring to hire undocumented workers.

The defendants first requested a change of venue in January, arguing that the case was thrust into “the center of a publicity firestorm” as thousands of newspaper stories reported the facts of the case.

But in March, federal judge Linda Reade denied the defense team’s request, noting that the defendants “appear to place too much emphasis on the role of the print media in contemporary society.”

The judge, however, left open the possibility for the parties to re-file their motion. She also directed the defense team and the state to cooperate on a questionnaire of to gauge the extent of adverse pretrial publicity among potential jurors.

Meanwhile, on June 1 the defense filed a second motion to change the venue, submitting a report called “News Coverage and the Instant Electronic Recall of Today’s Media.” With the report, the defense team argued that the confines of traditional news media have expanded so far that now there are blogs — blogs! — which are “indefinitely accessible.” The report emphasized that the reader comments that often are now allowed at the bottom of online news — sound familiar? — can be the most vicious and damaging. On June 18, Judge Reade again declined to move the trial.

But on June 10, a week before the court denied the second motion, the court adopted a lengthy questionnaire that was eventually sent to about 500 potential jurors. The questionnaire results revealed that more than 40% of potential jurors had already concluded the defendant guilty; 95% had heard of the case; and 75% said the opinions of the case had been influenced by news reports.

After reviewing the results, the defense team decided to file a third motion to the court asking for a change of venue. This time, Judge Reade agreed with the defense. On Sept. 1 the court found “that prejudice from pretrial publicity in this action is so extensive and corrupting that it may presume unfairness of a constitutional magnitude against Defendants Rubashkin and Agriprocessors.” The trial is headed for Sioux Falls, S.D.