# Williams v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · September 8, 1983 · 34 Cal. 3d 584

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793369

## Case

- **Full name:** FREDRICK WINFIELD WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 8, 1983
- **Citations:** 34 Cal. 3d 584; 194 Cal. Rptr. 492; 668 P.2d 799; 1983 Cal. LEXIS 232
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Broussard, Richardson, Mosk, Bird
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793369

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that in determining whether a defendant 26 cannot receive a fair trial in a particular county, the court must examine “(1) the nature and 27 || extent of the publicity; (2) the size of the [county’s] population; (3) the nature and gravity 28 || of the offense; (4) the …

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment only because a preferable alternative is not yet available. (See my dissenting opinion in Odle v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 932, 958 [ 187 Cal.Rptr. 455 , 654 P.2d 225 ].)
The trial of defendant’s brother lasted 10 months. That suggests an unusually large number of witnesses for both the prosecution and defense, and since the identical events are involved here the same witnesses will probably be called upon to testify in this case. The logistical problem of transporting the numerous witnesses to another county at appropriate times during the *596 course of the trial, and the disruption of their lives and employment for an unpleasant civic duty, make the change of venue singularly unattractive.
If a jury were impanelled in another county and imported to Placer County, only the jurors would be inconvenienced—as jurors generally are in any event—compared to the venue change difficulty of moving the defendant, prosecutor, defense counsel, security officers, records and exhibits. When the trial is moved, counsel for both the People and the defendant are confined to this one matter in the new locale, whereas if the trial remained in their home community, counsel would be able to attend to other pressing public business in the hours of recess.
Once again, I call attention to the several states that have adopted the practice of importing juries instead of changing trial venue. (See Use of Imported Juries Gains in Popularity (1982) 68 A.B.A.J. 668.)
Richardson, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793369. Public record. Not legal advice.