Prosecutors in the Jerry Sandusky trial asked that jurors be chosen from a neighboring county for the Centre County Pennsylvania trial. Sandusky the former Penn State assistant football coach is charged with 52 counts of sexual assault involving ten teenage boys over a fifteen year period. The case has drawn international attention since it involves allegations that the legendary former Penn State Coach Joe Paterno failed to take proper action upon learning of the abuse.

The attorney general alleged in the change of venire motion that the extraordinary amount of publicity and the special relationship between the people of Centre County and the university makes it necessary to use a jury from out of county. But the attorney general did not move for a change of venue.

The problem with the attorney general’s motion is that the Sixth Amendment guarantees “an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Of course a defendant can waive the right to a jury or the right to a trial in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. This occurrs relatively frequently when the defendant feels that he/she cannot get a fair trial in the jurisdiction. Its called a change of venue motion. But the Sixth Amendmend does not guarantee the government the right to change the venue. Nor does it allow the government to waive the defendant’s right to venue and venire. There is relatively little law on the subject.And it will be interesting to see what happens. But the clear language of the Sixth Amendment seems to work against the attorney general’s motion.

Jason Cornell was charged with two rapes in New York. One occurred in Monroe County. The other in Ontario County. He was tried and convicted on both of them in Ontario County.

Both incidents occurred, with different women on narcotics buying trips from Watkins Glen in Schuyler County, New York, to Rochester in Monroe County, New York.

His trial counsel failed to object to venue in Ontario County for the incident that occurred in Monroe County. The question before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was whether his counsel was incompetent and whether counsel’s incompetence prejudiced Cornell. Furthermore the court had to determine whether the state court decision was an unreasonable interpretation of established Supreme Court decisions under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

The Second Circuit found that counsel was incompetent. Counsel did not research New York’s venue rules. While there is a statute that allows an individual to be charged in any county through which he/she travels committing an offence it has been modified by a court ruling such that it only applies where the actual county where the crime occurs is unknown. Here it is undisputed that one incident occurred in Monroe County and the other in Ontario County. Furthermore there was no strategic reason for not raising the issue. Counsel requested a severance on other grounds which was denied. But he could have gotten a severance if he had raised the venue question.

But a finding of incompetence is insufficient. Under the Supreme Court decision in Strickland not only must there be incompetence but it must also prejudice the defendant. Here if his counsel had raised the issue it would have gone before the jury where there was overwhelming evidence that one offense happened in Monroe County.

Since the issue was raised on habeas corpus the AEDPA requires that the state court’s decision not only be wrong but it must also be unreasonable. The Second Circuit found that the state court’s denial of Cornell’s claim unreasonable misinterpreted Strickland in that it found that despite trial counsel’s prejudicial error he/she was not incompetent. Therefore the court reversed the conviction for the Monroe County case and ordered the case dismissed unless the Monroe County prosecutor decides to retry the matter.

Julian Tzolov and Eric Butler were charged in a three count indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York with security fraud. Both in the trial court and on appeal they challenged venue in the Eastern District of New York. In Count I they were charged with Conspiracy to Commit Securities Fraud. In Count II they were charged with Securities Fraud in relation to the collapse of the auction rate securities (“ARS”) market in 2007. ARS were high grade securities backed by debt obligations, such as student loans, mortgages, municipal bonds, corporate debt and preferred stock issued by closed-end mutual funds. The government guaranteed 98 per cent of the value of student loan backed ARS. Investors had the choice of holding on to the securities until they matured in thirty years or auctioning them off as a short term investment–sometimes as short as seven days. Most chose the short term turn around.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees venue in the district in which the crime occurred. In some cases venue is defined by statute and in other cases venue is defined by the location of acts forming the crime. As to Count II, Security Fraud, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff defines venue as “[a]ny criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred.” The only act alleged to have occurred in the Eastern District of New York was that the defendants flew in and out of Kennedy International Airport. The Second Circuit had no problem finding that merely flying out of Kennedy International Airport was not an act constituting the crime and reversed the securities fraud conviction. On the other hand conspiracy venue exists wherever an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred. An overt act is any act performed by a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. Flying through Kennedy International was an act in furtherance of the conspiracy and the Second Circuit upheld the conspiracy convictions alleged in Counts I and III.

An article in the New York Times raises the question as to whether the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed On charges of masterminding the 9/11 attack on the Word Trade Center and on United Flight 93 will be tried in New York or whether the venue will be changed to another city.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendent in a criminal case , among other rights, the right to an” impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” But the right to venue can be waived. In such cases the defendant must make a motion and the court must find that a change of venue is necessary to guarantee a fair trial.

Thus, the first question is whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will request a change of venue. Of course this assumes that there will be a trial. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has stated that he wants to plead guilty. In which there will be no need for a trial or to consider the venue question.

But assuming that he does not plead guilty Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his attorney will have to decide whether to request a change of venue. The question is not as easy as it might seem. At first glance one would want to get out of New York City as fast as possible. Many New Yorkers had friends and relatives killed on 9/11 and may be quite biased. Picking a jury that will give Mohammed a fair trial may be a near impossible task. But New York is a diverse community known for not imposing the death sentence. Thus if the goal is to save his life his defense team may decide not to move for a change of venue.

But even if the defense decides to consider a change in venue they may find that it is inappropriate. They will be required to hire experts to see if Mohammed is more likely to get a fair trial in each city. The expert will poll individuals in New York City and several other cities to determine the liklihood of getting a fair trial in New York and other chosen cities. In previous terrorist trials polls have have found that it is not the advantage of the alleged terrorist. In the case of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman the defense planned to request a change of venue but after the polling was done they changed their mind since there did not seem to be a clear advantage to a change of venue. The 9/11 attack is known nationwide and it may be impossible a better jury outside of New York City. While the attack on the World Trade Center occurred in New York it resulted in nationwide consequences and a nationwide stigma against anyone who may have been connected to the attack.

Alameda County, California Superior Court Judge Morris Jacobson granted the motion of former Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer Johannes Mehserle for a change in venue for his trial for the murder of Oscar Grant who he shot during an investigation of a rowdy incident on the subway at the Fruitdale Station in Oakland.

Judge Jacobson looked at six factors in determining the need for a change of venue. First he considered the nature and gravity of the offense. Since the offense is murder and since Mehserle appears to have committed the murder under color of law the judge found that the facts supports a change of venue.

The second factor is the nature and the extent of the media coverage. In the eight months following Grant’s death there was at least 2000 newspaper articles, 2000 television news segments, 350 radio news strories and and an unknown number of internet downloads on the killing in Alameda County. The quantity and pervasive nature of the media coverage together with polling evidence that shows that 70 per cent of Alameda County residents have prejudged Mehserle supports a change of venue.

The third factor is the size of he county. Alameda County is a large diverse county and therefore the size of the county weighs against a change in venue.

The fourth factor is the status of the defendant. The court found that Mehserle’s status, as a white police office who shot an unarmed African American weighs in favor of a change in venue.

The fifth factor is the status of the victim. The victim’s posthoumus characterization in the press and his personalization by the press, according to the court, favor a change in venue.

The sixth factor is political activity in relationship to the case. The Court found that the extraordinary amount of political activity in the form of demonstrations and riots weighs in favor of a change in venue. There have been at least three major demonstrations that have led to violence ansd numerous other demonstrations. The court staff is afraid of violence during the trial and it may be impossible to find a jury that is not afraid of injury if they come back with a not guilty verdict. Also numerous national and local political and religious leaders have taken a stand and this contributes to a finding that venue should be changed. Considering all of the factors the judge granted the motion for a change in venue.

The next step is to select a California city where the trial can be held. But this may be a problem. In determining whether a defendant can get a fair trial precedent bases the decision on press coverage. With the internet and a world press it may be difficult to find a jury anywhere in California in which the members have not made up their minds in advance. One of the factors Judge Jacobson looked at involved statements by political and religious leaders. These are national leaders and it may effect the selection of a jury in any county in the state. The fact that the defendant is White and the victim was African American will not change in whatever county is chosen.

Moving the trial out of Alameda County, will remove some of the tension around the trial. But it is questionable whether our founding fathers would have approved of moving the trial. One of the issues in colonial America was the patriot’s objection to the removal of the trial of any Crown officer to England. Another issue was the use of the mob to close the Crown’s courts. When you consider Mehserle to be a police officer much like the Crown’s officers and when you consider the colonial mobs to be much like demonstrators today it becomes clear that the writers of the Constitution may not have approved of Judge Jacobson’s order.