 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. House11/20/1997
venue from Taos County. See Williams, 774 P.2d at 153 (listing relevant factors); 21 Am. Jur. 2d 389 (same). Specifically, four of these factors warrant further Discussion (1) the nature and extent of pretrial publicity; (2) the nature and size of the Taos community; (3) political factors; and (4) the presence of fixed opinions.
1. Nature and Extent of Publicity
{99} The events occurring on Christmas Eve 1992 and the ensuing prosecution of Defendant generated an extremely large volume of high-profile press coverage. As the majority acknowledges, the pretrial publicity was extreme. The trial court heard expert testimony that Taos County fell within the designated market area of the Albuquerque newspapers and television stations from which much of the publicity emanated, and that a high percentage of Taos residents were exposed to these sources on a regular basis. Taos residents were also exposed to radio broadcasts concerning the incidents which emanated from Albuquerque. The trial court reviewed over 200 newspaper articles and more than 40 television broadcasts, including a special television program devoted to this case, to reach its detailed findings regarding the nature and extent of pretrial publicity in Taos County.
{100}The press coverage was unrelenting, continuing through the Conclusion of the second trial with front-page newspaper articles and top-story television broadcasts. As noted in one newspaper article, "radio shows were abuzz with opinion about the hung jury . . . ." "Public Expresses Dismay Over House Decision," Albuquerque J., June 21, 1994, at A5. Another article in the June 23, 1994, edition of the Taos News, entitled "Highly publicized trial draws media circus; Judge becomes ringmaster," observed that Defendant's "trial was moved to Taos from Albuquerque because of pretrial publicity. But the move did not stop the publicity." Hence, this is not a case where publicity was minimal or had diminished over time.
{101}The trial court's review of the content of the newspaper articles and television broadcasts presented in the record revealed that the nature of the publicity was, in some instances, emotional, sensational, inflammatory, intrusive, and potentially misleading. As noted in the trial court's order, pictures of the accident scene were shown repeatedly in newspapers and on television. Both Defendant's family and the remaining family of the victims were depicted and interviewed by the media on a regular basis. Defendant was described as a "drunk Indian" and a "murderer." The prosecutors and victims' family members were accused of being "racists" and harboring a "lust for vengeance." Media coverage of the first and second trials included cameras in the courtroom, and probing interviews with members of the jury and the venire.
{102}During voir dire of prospective jurors before the second trial, it became apparent that some of the media coverage had been misleading, as false impressions about the facts of the case were traced to what prospective jurors had read or seen in the media. The State's polling expert also expressed a concern that people who had learned about the case through the media were quick to Judge whether Defendant was guilty or innocent regardless of their knowledge of the evidence presented in the case.
{103}The foregoing constituted sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings regarding the nature and extent of the publicity.
2. Nature and Size of Community
{104}Courts may consider the nature and size of the community as a factor in their venue decisions where they find it reasonable to infer that the impact of media coverage is less likely to dissipate over ti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|