 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. House11/20/1997
me in a smaller community or that the small size of the community increases the risk of an unfair trial for other reasons. See Adcox, 763 P.2d at 917; Maine, 438 P.2d at 380 (citing Friendly & Goldfarb, supra, at 79). In this case, the trial court's order changing venue from Taos County contains several findings regarding the nature and size of the Taos community.
{105}The State's expert on demographics presented census data showing that Taos County had a population of 23,118, about 70 percent of which are adults. In comparison, Bernalillo County, where the offense was alleged to have been committed, had a population of about 500,000 people. Dona Ana County, where the third trial was held, had a population of 135,510. The size of the community at issue in the second change of venue is thus affected by the first change of venue, since Taos County has a significantly smaller number of individuals from which a jury pool may be selected than either Bernalillo or Dona Ana counties.
{106}Voir dire of prospective jurors during the second trial gave some indication that information, opinions, and influence regarding the case were widely shared due to the close-knit nature of the Taos County community. At least one prospective juror in the second trial had attended the first trial. Several others had heard about the first trial from family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers. In addition, the trial court considered its own past experience with jury trials in Taos County in reaching its Conclusions regarding the close-knit nature of the Taos community.
{107}There was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings regarding the nature and size of the Taos community.
3. Political Factors
{108}"Political factors have no place in a criminal proceeding, and when they are likely to appear . . . they constitute an independent reason for a venue change." Maine, 438 P.2d at 380. This principle can be traced to Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 342, 354 n.9 (1966), where the denial of the defendant's right to due process resulted, in part, from the fact that both the chief prosecutor and the trial Judge were engaged in a "hotly contested election" that took place about two weeks after the trial began. Subsequent cases have expanded consideration of political factors beyond the context of elections involving officers of the court. In particular, courts have considered "political debate concerning the fiscal impact of the trial" as one factor supporting a change of venue. See People v. Tidwell, 473 P.2d 748, 754 (1970).
{109}The offenses at issue in the present case occurred about one month prior to the start of a legislative session, and the victims' family members became the focus of efforts to reform the laws regarding drinking and driving during that session. While most of this legislative lobbying occurred outside of Taos County, it was widely reported by Albuquerque media sources which targeted Taos County as part of their designated market area.
{110}The attention paid to this case by elected officials and local community leaders did not abate after the first or second mistrials occurred. Rather, the district attorney in charge of prosecuting the case was called before the legislature to answer questions concerning the fiscal impact of retrying the case a third time. One of the individuals engaged in this questioning was a State Senator representing Taos County. See Colleen Heild, "Senators Grill DA on Gordon House Case," Albuquerque J., Feb. 25, 1995, at A10. The State Senator was quoted in the press as "wondering if any of this (requested) funding necessary to pursue the jury chasing to find a jury that will ul
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.
|
|