Opinion ID: 778656
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Convenience

Text: 173 Rule 18's due regard to the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses militates strongly against transfer in this case. The record shows that the defendant and all witnesses resided in Dallas. In addition, every defense attorney practiced there, and the judge was based in Dallas. Not a single relevant event occurred outside Dallas. 180 As convenience of the prosecution ... is not a factor to consider in changing venue, 181 the convenience facts rarely cut as totally against transfer as they did here. 174 The district court did not mention these contra-transfer facts in its order. It merely noted that Amarillo was served by several airlines, that it was a five hours' drive from Dallas, and — perhaps inaccurately and irrelevantly — that the defendants were represented by retained counsel. 182 These facts, of course, did not diminish the basic truth that trial in Amarillo was inconvenient for Lipscomb, his counsel, and all witnesses. This case is, therefore, easily distinguishable from the two cases on which the district court relied, because convenience did not militate against transfer in either of them. 183 Those cases do not support the court's sua sponte transfer here, and the trial court erred as a matter of law in relying on them.