Why? Both affect the Auburn community/Auburn fans. Why do we have 38 pages and counting discussing this? We wouldn't if it happened in any other city in the US.
I would say Updyke had even more national coverage.
National coverage isn't even an issue to consider.
Two things: Can the defendant show ACTUAL prejudice against him on the part o of the jurors, or a showing where there is already presumed prejudice resulting from a saturation of PREJUDICIAL pretrial publicity that no impartial jury can be selected. Can't prove #1 until it's time for trial. I don't think this case has had any more than normal prejudicial news coverage.
Neither of those prongs can be proved at this point, and I doubt that they can at all. Extensive pretrial publicity alone isn't enough to constitute grounds for a change of venue. Jurors are not required to have no knowledge of the case, nor are they required to not have an opinion of the case.
The publicity itself, has been, for the large part, simply factual in nature, and not prejudicial to the defendant here. In Updyke's case, it has been BUT largely by his own doing! You can't create the prejudice yourself then expect a change of venue.
780 Replies
93543 Views