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 status of the victim and of the accused; and (5) whether political 1 ||overtones are present.”
How later courts described this case
- 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 status of the victim and of the accused; and (5) whether political 1 ||overtones are present.”
- held: change of venue motion mistakenly denied; defendant was member of minority group and stranger to community; victim was white and from prominent family; and case had political overtones
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BIRD, C. J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in that portion of the majority opinion which concludes that a change of venue is necessary in order that petitioner receive a fair trial in this case.
However, for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Sand v. Superior Court (1983) ante, pages 567, 576 [ 194 Cal.Rptr. 480 , 668 P.2d 787 ], I would find that petitioner is entitled to funds under Penal Code section 987.9. This is a “capital case” within the meaning of section 987.9 since special circumstances are alleged and petitioner may receive a sentence of life without possibility of parole.