Replies

Defendants facing felony criminal charges with 90% hostile jury pool, like Trump, need no change of venue.

Assuming you refer to the J6 trial in DC, to where do you presume to change the venue to, and remain in DC?

Amendment VI "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by 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 O. J. Simpson, different story.

The O.J. case was filed in downtown Los Angeles and not moved. O.J. was acquitted. The prosecution was absolutely dreadful, except when recounted by the talking heads on nightly tv. In court, it was one disaster after another.

The O.J. trial was held in a Los Angeles County Court where DA Gil Garcetti chose to file it. Had it been held in Santa Monica (also in LA county), the jury pool selection would still have been county-wide. Also, the jury was empanelled with the prosecution holding 10 unused peremptory challenges.

I did not know that Cochran had talked Garcetti into holding the trial in LA (and so there was no change of venue as such), but I assume you are correct about the jury pool. It looks like Garcetti let Cochran pick the jury. Maybe because he didn't want to offend certain parts of his voters, who knows. Therefore the O.J. case does not support my point.

I was talking about the Bragg case, not the DC case. The 6th Amendment requires "an impartial jury." Tell me you believe that Trump was likely to find an impartial jury there. If so, you are giving Bragg and Merchan too much credit. If Merchan allowed a venue change, I think it's likely that his superiors would not be pleased. Still, I think that would have been fair, because while the 6th Amendments requirement of an "impartial jury" in this case contradicts the requirement that it be held in the district where the alleged crime occurred, I believe the first requirement should surmount the latter.

I am not sure it makes sense to say that all these alleged crimes would have been committed in Manhattan. Payments today are not necessarily as physical as they were in 1791. And IMO it's nonsense to try to assign a place to the so-called "crime" of intent to influence an election.