Opinion ID: 1684899
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Extent and Nature of Any Pretrial Publicity

Text: With the pretrial publicity here, the record does not establish that the jurors could not possibly put these matters out of their minds. Rolling, 695 So.2d at 284. First, the publicity consisted of largely factual articles, rather than inflammatory stories. [23] The factual information in newspaper articles included the following: (1) Overton was indicted in the MacIvor killings, and the charges he faced were listed; (2) people who knew Overton were shocked to discover the charges he faced based upon their past positive dealings with him; (3) Overton's DNA did not match with other unsolved murders; (4) a new judge (Judge Jones) was appointed in the case; (5) advertisements were placed on billboards to gather potential leads in the case; (6) an ailing witness was allowed to have his testimony perpetuated in Pennsylvania; (7) Overton denied involvement in the MacIvor murders; (8) Overton considered whether to act as his own lawyer; (9) defense counsel requested that DNA evidence be excluded; (10) Overton claimed to be a victim of a police plot and would prove such through the Nonoxynol theory; and (11) details of the funeral services for the MacIvors. Conversely, the material did contain some inflammatory items including: (1) many of the stories did mention Overton's past criminal activity as a burglar; (2) a description that Overton [had] been in trouble since he was a youngster; (3) a description that Overton was institutionalized for mental health problems in the past; and (4) the DNA results established that there was a one-in-six-billion chance that anyone but Overton committed the crime. Notwithstanding some inflammatory matters, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that the pretrial publicity was largely factual, rather than inflammatory. See Rolling, 695 So.2d at 284 (holding that notwithstanding that the case generated massive pretrial publicity, a motion to change venue was not improperly denied as such pretrial publicity was not presumptively prejudicial because it consisted of `straight news stories,' relating `cold, hard facts'). Second, much of this largely factual information was even beneficial to Overton. For example, one newspaper article illustrated that Overton's DNA did not match with the DNA evidence from other unsolved murders. Thus, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that the pretrial publicity did not completely favor the prosecution's version of the case. Accordingly, these factors do not support the assertion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to change venue.