[DrBazza]

Maybe? The judge, and the lawyers involved have the right to reject jurors that might prejudice a trail.

[ceejayoz]

Yes, but that's a lot easier to manage in a county that doesn't have only 30k people in it.

[DannyBee]

They applied for change of venue 3 times, lost all 3 times, and appealed it to the north dakota supreme court, and lost there too.

Overall, they could not make the showing necessary.

I read the motions and responses, and was not particularly impressed with their arguments for change of venue.

[hrimfaxi]

Lawyers don't have unlimited removals though.

[staticautomatic]

Not peremptory strikes, but you have unlimited removals for cause (and admittedly a steep appellate hill to climb if they’re unfairly denied)

[cucumber3732842]

You're gonna have a hell of a time construing a quality (energy sector or few steps removed employment) as "cause" when it's applicable to a large minority if not majority of the jury pool.

The judge might allow it, but the odds are long and the next judge will certainly allow an appeal on those grounds so you probably don't even gain much except time.

[staticautomatic]

It’s actually not that uncommon to lose a ton of people for cause in cases that are a good fit for a transfer of venue motion. But of course it does come down to the trial judge. I don’t understand who this “next judge” is that you’re referring to.

[cucumber3732842]

>I don’t understand who this “next judge” is that you’re referring to.

If you do something slimy like dismiss a huge fraction of the juror pool because you don't like their demographics (vs for example having to dismiss the half of the population that had their opinion biased by the news or some other non-slimy reason to cause the same outcome) there will be an appeal and that appeal will be presided over by a judge.

[staticautomatic]

That's not how jury selection works. You never have enough peremptory strikes to "dismiss a huge fraction of the jury pool."