Personal InjuryWill Angels' Pitcher Nick Adenhart Murder Trial Get Change of Venue?
Prosecutors of the deadly drunk driving car crash in Los Angeles, which took the life of Angels' pitcher Nick Adenhart, say the murder trial should not be moved from Orange County. The deputy District Attorney for Orange County, Susan Price, gave her argument in a court brief stating that impartial local jurors can be found for the trial, according to a news report in UPI.com.
The defense in this case has filed a motion with the trial court for a "change of venue." The term "Venue" is used to indicate the geographical location of the court which will try the case. The geographical location is important because the pool of jurors may be taken from the people who live in the same location as the court. This pool of people from which the jury will be selected will be exposed to information that might lead a juror to pre-judge the factual issues in the trial. The information might be case specific, such as newspaper articles about the crash which took the life of Mr. Adenhart. Other influences might not be directed to the case at all, but might come from a more general level, such as baseball fans and Angels' fans in particular, which might make an Orange County resident more prone to feel sorry for the family of the Angels' baseball player and against the person charged with killing the Angels' pitcher.
It appears that the motion in this case argues that it will be difficult to select a fair jury in the region's jury pool. This may be due to the notoriety this case has received. This could make it difficult to find potential jurors who truly have not heard about the drunk driving crash and who do not have a favorable attachment to the Angels. In deciding a motion to change venue, the trial court considers such factors as the nature and gravity of the offense, the size of the community, the status of the defendant, the popularity and prominence of the victim, and the nature and extent of the publicity (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322).
California Penal Code section 1033 provides that a court must order the change of venue of a criminal trial to another county "when it appears that there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county."
The California Supreme Court has stated on many occasions that the search for an appropriate jury pool reasonably free from the influence of outside facts, discussion, or influences is key in assuring the defendant his constitutional right to due process and a fair trial. "A trial court should grant a change of venue when the defendant demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that in the absence of such relief, he or she cannot obtain a fair trial." (People v. Coffman (2004) 34 Cal4th 1, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710).
In deciding a motion to change venue, the trial court considers such factors as the nature and gravity of the offense, the size of the community, the status of the defendant, the popularity and prominence of the victim, and the nature and extent of the publicity (People v. Davis (2009) 46 Cal.4th 539, 94 Cal.Rptr.3d 322).
Applying these factors to the pending murder case, the defense is most likely arguing the "popularity and prominence of the victim" and "the nature and extent of the publicity" about the event in making their motion. Remember that this was very prominent, even in national news media reporting and Internet discussion, in publicity and comments by groups such as MADD, and other use of the events to spread a group's message about driving, alcohol abuse such as drunk driving collisions, irresponsible conduct, and other conduct or punishment. The Angels wore black bands on their uniforms all season long. Many reminders have kept the case in the mind of the Orange County public. The prominence of the victim was very high -- a rookie pitcher who had a tremendous first start at the beginning of a promising season, at the start of a promising career, to have all this "future greatness" wiped out in an instant.
These influences heightened the public awareness, increasing the reasonable likelihood that members of the jury will be preconditioned to have prejudged the defendant in the hit and run car accident case.
The prosecution is likely to rely on the "size of the community" as making it less likely that the pool will have a significant number of Angels' fans, and to play down the effects of baseball attachment and the publicity.
The crux of ruling on the motion can be seen as being can we trust the people who are chosen as jurors to be open minded and committed to deciding the facts of the case based on the evidence presented in court and the law as instructed by the judge? If there is a likelihood that emotional factors which are strong enough to overcome the usual detached evaluation of evidence and will drive the jurors to decide the case based on outside influences, then the defendant (or the prosecution because a jury pool might actually favor the defendant) has the right to have the trial held in another county to try to protect the parties' right to a fair trial.
(click on icons for more information)
SLS Consulting
