When a Trial Absolutely Must Be Moved

The not-guilty verdicts in the trial of four police officers charged in the beating of motorist Rodney G. King have ignited bipartisan demands in the Legislature for an overhaul of laws that enable highly publicized trials to be moved from one location to another. We think that change clearly is necessary.

The rules governing motions for a change of trial venue in California are similar to those of most other states. Similar, in particular, in the discretion they give judges in determining whether to grant motions for change of venue and, having done so, in selecting a new trial site.

Venue laws are designed to protect the right of a criminal defendant when, for example, pretrial publicity makes a fair trial impossible in the county where the crime occurred. Defense attorneys infrequently request a change of venue, and courts even less frequently grant these requests. Since 1983, California courts have granted an average of only 15 such motions each year. Even the trials of high-profile defendants like Charles Manson, the Hillside Strangler, John DeLorean, and Raymond Buckey and Peggy McMartin Buckey were held in Los Angeles County, where those heavily publicized cases were filed.

Successful change-of-venue motions are rare in other states as well. Why? Moving a trial is risky and expensive for both sides and generally is unnecessary. Most counties can find a panel of jurors who attest, despite pretrial publicity, that they can be impartial. Moreover, given the state of electronic communication, moving a trial does not always shield potential jurors from publicity. The grainy images of King suffering repeated blows were televised around the world within hours; countless millions abroad as well as residents of Ventura County saw the 81-second videotape and later read about the incident. But attorneys representing the officers who beat King nonetheless won a change of venue in the Court of Appeals.

Existing rules governing selection of the so-called “receiving county” suggest that the new court not be “unduly burdened” by the new trial assignment, that the parties not be unduly inconvenienced and that the expense to the parties and the state be minimized. Assignment of the case to Simi Valley in Ventura County accomplished those objectives.

But the widespread shock and anger over the officers’ acquittal by a Simi Valley jury demonstrate why judges must at least consider more than judicial economy and the convenience of parties when moving trials.

In some cases finding a new location somewhat comparable to the old in demographic makeup may be in the interests of justice. Legislation that would explicitly require judges to at least consider the demographic factor is being drafted in Sacramento. We urge its swift passage. The integrity of California’s justice system depends on the respect of all citizens, respect that has been jeopardized.