Change of venue is a vital tool in ensuring the fairness of a trial. It refers to moving a trial from one location to another to ensure a more impartial jury or to address other concerns, such as convenience. The concept of change of venue is anchored in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.
Reading Time: 3 minutes
One of the most significant cases regarding change of venue is Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966). Dr. Sam Sheppard was accused of murdering his wife, and his trial garnered intense media attention. Sheppard argued that the media circus had prejudiced the jury against him. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the media’s influence was so pervasive that it was impossible for Sheppard to get a fair trial, thus violating his Sixth Amendment rights. This case established that excessive media coverage could justify a change of venue.
Another significant case is Skilling v. United States (2010), involving Jeffrey Skilling, former Enron CEO. Skilling argued for a change of venue due to the hostile sentiment towards him in Houston, where the trial was set. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts didn’t err in denying Skilling’s request for a change of venue, holding that pretrial publicity and community prejudice did not prevent him from obtaining a fair trial.
Finally, Murphy v. Florida (1975) clarified the circumstances where pretrial publicity may not necessarily require a change of venue. The Supreme Court held that the mere existence of extensive publicity does not automatically mean the defendant cannot receive a fair trial.
Summary
The principle of change of venue aims to uphold the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a fair trial by an impartial jury. The Supreme Court, through cases like Sheppard v. Maxwell, Skilling v. United States, and Murphy v. Florida, has provided guidance on when a change of venue is necessary, and it is usually when there is a significant likelihood of prejudice against the defendant in the original venue. However, extensive publicity alone does not necessarily warrant a change of venue.
References
- Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010).
- Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (1975).
Modification History File Created: 08/08/2018 Last Modified: 07/24/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
You are welcome to print a copy of pages from this Open Educational Resource (OER) book for your personal use. Please note that mass distribution, commercial use, or the creation of altered versions of the content for distribution are strictly prohibited. This permission is intended to support your individual learning needs while maintaining the integrity of the material.
