this case when the juror for the country jurors told the judge that that they think they could ignore the evidence that they had heard or information they heard from the media and could decide this case is impartial and these are matters at trial that that whole issue of the polygraph had been in the papers that was never going to be admissible but here you don't have that type of publicising about issues that is never going to be before the stairs right over to you do you do you where the the there was public publicity about the fact that the defendant was charged with a murder in this council which was going to be inadmissible in that case over it because sanchez one of the jurors that was like that never heard of the taylor were the media coverage was obviously pervasive by any measure three hundred eighty nine articles in this record and that's not a complete sample because most of the most of the articles that were written during the  that in common with hillary then finally of the fourth factor just like in taylor after council ran out of challenges jersey were actually seated who had heard of all east these six other merce so the worst earth actually on the jury who something that they really can't put out there had you know the fact that this is nicholas sheley and that they know about these cases and finally it just to this is ok then you've created a per se rule that anytime cures that they're ok you know that they can put out their mind then then that's what i don't know how you could possibly get a change of venue in this case if you can't get one in determination that potential jurors have credibly testify that they can be fair and impartial teller's explicit that is does not create any kind of hard and fast rule or no four factors that we can look to in every case those are all relevant that conducted extensive wordier including specifically regarding the pretrial media didn't treat the words i believe fair i can be impartial i don't prejudge as magic words mean he questioned that the potential jurors extensively about that and each of the twelve jurors testified repeatedly that whatever information they had from pretrial media they could put it out of mind inside a case based solely on the evidence and used the trial and each testify would you believe that they had not prejudge that it's just like unbelievable those big or do we have to get that level that it's unbelievable that anybody would say that i of average size so we can't really accept their subjective statements  ninety percent of potential jurors were familiar with the case and the court found that the jury in that case was very impartial and in tailor the court is clear that that sheer volume of coverage is three of them there were three jurors who are aware of at least some other crimes evidence it's worth noting i think that that the judge in this case are determined that evidence of the russell mead murder which responded no i do not know the facts whatever's in print or what's on t v is not always true so in addition to to saying generally that he could set aside this information inside the case based solely on the other incidents the trial he was pressed on versus this case and offer your honest question about the difference between a polygraph evidence and other crimes that are the evidence in taylor created a direct inference of the defendant's alleged involvement in those subsequent orders to come in in this case so there's a dear is an inherent difference between other crimes evidence generally and and polygraph evidence and the difference between the other crimes evidence in this case and and polygraph evidence in fact the inference of defendant's guilt to be drawn from his alleged involvement in other murders is no greater than the inference that a jerk would draw from questions about the objective standard in this case if his objective will be you know the police are in a sort of that that this case if you don't have a situation in this case that's found here when would you ever have a tail or a problem not you know in this day and age where you're going to supreme court rule that requires more extensive for your examination you know i know those things in your meeting between the types of evidence the power graph ursus you know the other kinds that was subsequently found to be coerced or not admissible that that kind of information being conveyed through pretrial media and the you know six of twelve jurors being aware of that information something related to something coming from somehow directly or indirectly from me you have something like the something like it and exclude a and he confession that was subsequently excluded because it was not found to be reliable  defendant is guilty of this crime as opposed to other crimes evidence which while certainly not immiscible for propensity purposes often has appropriate non propensity relevance to a case and in this case didn't create any stronger inference of the defendant's guilt than the usual inference that could be drawn from the defendant's arrest and indictment on from on so you know there are there are still potentially hard cases i think this is also relevant that only one of the twelve jurors on had any had any awareness based on the record of the subsequent murders and he was pressed on that issue in testified extensively about his ability juror that she could quote recall hearing something a few years ago but it was a there there is this general weariness because of the extensive pretrial media of this case before trial b that if a defendant has committed a crime like this in the past short of zero evidence obviously but that if a defendant is created you committed a crime like this in the past that is more likely that he is guilty of this crime first there's the fact that only juror rouse was aware of on specific information regarding the subsequent murders that were deemed immiscible in this case because of their potentially prejudicial improbably prejudicial value and therefore we you know we need to make sure that each and every one of those and then what was it was three words three were aware of some vague information that there may be other crimes but person some of the other  committing other crimes through pretrial media vs hearing evidence of other crimes at trial when he testifies that whatever's in print or what's on t v is not always true he was not treating it's clear from the board here not just representative of the level of order that was conducted consistently in this case and the trial court determined based on extensive questioning on the each of the jurors a credibly testified that he or she could set aside  that information that they had received to pretrial media and decide the case based solely on the evidence used at trial but the interesting question standard of review is judging the credibility what do we usually use the different because this is course of conduct that is this was you know this was this eight days spree that one for you know one murder lead to the next what's the next level to the next so is this is a situation where if he's the guy who committed the six murders in rockfall of formers and mark falls he's also probably the guy who committed the murder and yells for so it does you know it does have an prejudicial effect beyond just propensity in this