held: venue motion properly denied where more than two years passed between time of intense media coverage and prospective trial date, publicity not geographically pervasive, publicity not particularly hostile, and standing of accused and victim were neutral factors in case
How later courts described this case
- held: venue motion properly denied where more than two years passed between time of intense media coverage and prospective trial date, publicity not geographically pervasive, publicity not particularly hostile, and standing of accused and victim were neutral factors in case
- two judges dissented from California Supreme Court’s denial of Odle’s writ to mandate change of venue
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J.
I join the dissent of the Chief Justice.
In doing so, however, I cannot be oblivious to the considerable burden on the administration of justice and the cost to the public resulting from the change of venue in a major case. The defendant, the victims, prosecutors, defense counsel, security officers, records and exhibits must be transported from the county of origin to a relatively distant county. Perhaps the most serious problem is inconvenience to the many witnesses, some of whom may have been only fortuitously involved and are resentful. Thus the migration process appears to be improvident, at least compared to an available alternative used in a number of other states.
Instead of moving the case out of the county when there is a substantial likelihood that the public, i.e., available jury panel, has been infected by prejudicial publicity, a more simple and less costly expedient would be to import a jury venire from outside the county, and, if necessary, sequester the selected jury during the course of the trial. This process has been used in Pennsylvania, Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Carolina, Kentucky and New Hampshire. Similar proposals are being considered in a number of other states, in *959 cluding Iowa, Alabama and Florida. North Carolina has permitted this procedure since 1913. (See Use of Imported Juries Gains in Popularity (1982) 68 A.B.A.J. 668.)
Since the foregoing proposal and its logistical format require legislative authorization, I cannot do more in the instant case than agree with the views of the Chief Justice. Perhaps the Legislature, after a cost and convenience comparison, will consider the scheme found by other states to be a practical solution.
Petitioner’s application for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 19, 1983. Grodin, J., did not participate therein. Bird, C. J., and Mosk, J., were of the opinion that the application should be granted.