Things To Consider When Choosing Your Change Of Venue Survey

The integrity of the law and all of the procedures which come about from it are held in high esteem as a crucial factor in our society. In the United States, its citizens have a constitutional right to a fair trial in the court of law. Whether they are guilty or not, all of its citizens have a right to defend themselves in court and fight for their freedom and justice. But, at times, there are many external factors that can unfairly influence the outcome of a case.

Due to subliminal factors that can affect the jury, there are some legal procedures that can be taken to equalize the opposing factors obstructing justice and fair reasoning. Some of these procedures include the jury selection process, where attorneys analyze and interview potential jury members on various points of their lives and personality to rid the jury of bias and prejudice. But the focus of this blog will be on the change of venue survey and the benefits that come with this legal procedure.

Before we begin, it should be explained what exactly is a change of venue procedure. This is a legal motion in which an attorney and his client submit a request to have the location of the trial changed to another county because of external factors that can influence the jury. Typically, if a crime happens within Broward County, the trial will be held in that county’s courthouse, but if a defendant and his attorney feel that they will not get a fair trial there, they can submit a request to hold the trial in a different location, respectively.

A change of venue survey is a method of inquiring the feelings and opinions of potential jury members about the case as there are many external factors that can influence the final decision which the jury may come to. For the most part, this legal procedure is mostly associated with criminal cases because of the scandal that some of these cases can arouse in people. There are many reasons why some decide to change the venue of the location in their case, but most importantly, it should be for the preservation of justice.

The whole essence of defense litigation in the United States is to be judged by an impartial jury, but due to the inflammatory aspects of the crime, or leaks by the media, the defendant may get a biased and prejudicial jury. The survey mentioned in this blog is a form of jury selection, in a sense, because you are trying to rid the jury pool of biased elements which can obstruct justice. A request for a change of venue has to be presented to a judge who will analyze the request as well as any surveys that were filled, and if it is seen that there is judicial bias, the defense team has three options,

1. To choose an impediment temporary, which is when the case is postponed in order to let confounded emotions in the public and potential jury members calm down.
2. The courts may import jurors from another county or location which has not been affected by the crime.
3. Or, you may decide to change the location of the venue completely.
For the most part, judges and the courts do not grant a change of venue on the grounds that voir dire will extract rational judgment from the jury. Voir dire is an Old French term which means “to speak the truth;” this is the basis for the jury in the American justice system. It obliges the jury to present a sound verdict after analyzing the evidence and hearing both arguments from the defense and the prosecution. But if the judge or the court see that there is a blatant disregard for the evidence or if there is an obvious bias, and a very interesting aspect to this is, the judges will agree to change the venue if government officials or the police have helped exacerbate the emotions that the public is feeling.

To further confirm the pervasive influence on the jury from what the public is feeling, public opinion polls are conducted to see if these feelings of prejudice are present within the public. This aspect can be greatly exacerbated by the news media coverage of the crime which can spark feelings that will make them unfit to stand trial, especially if some are chosen for jury duty. If voir dire is unsound and there is already a bias against the defendant, then the legal process will be futile because of the jury being incredulous.

Examples of a tainted voir dire can be seen throughout American history, especially in the country’s segregated era. Due to an all-white jury’s negative disposition toward black defendants on trial, many of the defendants were unjustly tried and sentenced to hard time or even death. In a more memorable case, during the O.J. Simpson trial, the majority of the jury had a predisposed stance because of the high racial tension in Los Angeles, California at the time. To make matters worse, evidence of Detective Mark Fuhrman of the Los Angeles Police Department using racially insensitive language was uncovered, making his testimony of the crime scene at Nicole Simpson’s house irrelevant and further implied that he planted a bloody glove in O.J’s house as a racially motivated conspiracy.

Some crimes are shocking in the hearts and minds of the public; it is hard to simply ignore egregious details of a crime, and judge a defendant on trial with pragmatic reasoning. Legal procedures such as a change of venue survey allow the attorneys to get a scope of the feelings that potential jury members may have about the case and the accused defendant. Having a biased stance on an issue in court taints the legal process and if it has been found that potential jury members have taken a stance pertaining to the defendant and the crime of which he has been accused of, the location of the trial can be changed to increase the rate of a fair trial.

If a crime were to happen in Miami-Dade County and surveys have proven that not only is there prejudice amongst potential jury members but also the public, then the case can be moved to another nearby county such Broward or Palm Beach County. A change of venue is a procedure to further guarantee a fair trial for a person whether he has committed the crime or not; initial impartiality amongst the jury is the best means of providing justice for those who are standing trial. The very essence of justice lies in an impartial jury, ready judge fairly.