Opinion ID: 1655090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Whether Defense Counsel erred in withdrawing their motion for change of venue.

Text: ¶ 41. Woodward's counsel during his first trial filed a Motion for Change of Venue on September 10, 1986. The trial court granted that motion, and Woodward's first trial was held in Hinds County. On April 27, 1994, during hearings on various motions, Woodward's counsel for his re-sentencing trial announced the withdrawal of the motion for change of venue. The following colloquy occurred, Adelman: Your Honor, the next motion is the motion for change of venue. Upon further reflection and consultation with my client, we are going to withdraw that motion. In fact I have a written Trial Court: Let me make absolutely certain, though, Mr. Woodward is aware of that. Woodward: Sir. Trial Court: Are you aware of that? Woodward: Yes, sir. I do wish my attorney to withdraw my motion. Trial Court: So you want it to actually be heard here in Perry County? Woodward: Yes, sir. Adelman: I am going to have him sign it, but it needs to be notarized. That same day, Woodward's attorneys filed his Motion to Withdraw Motion for Change of Venue, which was signed by Woodward. The trial court's order granting the withdraw of the motion was entered on June 20, 1994. The case was originally set for jury trial on September 19, 1994, however, due to the disqualification of several jurors, the court was unable to seat a jury. During voir dire of the special venire, just prior to declaring the mistrial, the trial court again questioned Woodward's counsel regarding the withdrawal of the motion to change venue. The following colloquy occurred, Trial Court: Obviously I was going to grant a change of venue when that motion was filed, then the motion was withdrawn. I don't know if that was trial tactics or trial strategy or what, but I feel almost compelled to ask Mike, did you check with any outside sources or anything that made you determine that you could come here and get a fair trial in Perry County, since you had filed a motion at one time. And you may elect not to answer that. You may consider that as part of your trial strategy.... Did you make the determination by yourself, or you and Ms. Rushing make it, or make it in consort with Mr. Woodward, or did you have some outside input of whether or not you could in fact get enough people here to try this case?.... And do you now want to call up your motion for a change of venue? Adelman: When I read the transcript I was convinced that Mr. Woodward stood as good, if not better, chance of getting a fair trial in Perry County than he did anyplace else. I read that transcript, I saw what happened in Jackson and I was convinced that Trial Court: This is not a fair question and you can not answer if you want to. Are you still convinced of that? Adelman: Of course, as the defendant he has the right to stand trial in the county in which he is accused. My offer to Mr. White, and he knows what it is, is still good, and we could resolve this case. . . . . White: Knowing that the defense cannot get a fair trial, in an effort to try and coerce a plea bargain, the State is not going to agree to plea bargain. . . . . Adelman: First of all, let me say a couple of things. I made the offer to you, Glenn, in good faith, whether youI understand, and I'm not trying to coerce anybody. That's just an option and I want to make clear that it was open. And I understood your position from day one. Number two, I, in good faith, looked at the options, and we were looking at the coast, and quite frankly, I do not believe that Mr. Woodward can get a fair trial on the [coast]. Woodward's counsel moved for a mistrial and stated that the defense would like [an] opportunity to confer at some point, not necessarily today, about the possibility of an agreement on the change of venue. The trial court encouraged the motion to change venue to be refiled and the prosecutor stated that he thought it would be impossible to seat an impartial jury in Perry County. In granting the defense's motion for a mistrial, the trial court stated, Oh, no, and I want this record to be replete with the fact that I'm certainly not questioning ineffective of counsel. [sic] I don't mean I don't think that you could have worked any harder on behalf of the defendant than you have done. And I personally express the Court's appreciation both to you and Ms. Rushing. But what I feared was going to happen did in fact happen. And I think that's just what you've got when you've got a county of this size. The sentencing trial was ultimately reset for September 1995 in Perry County. During voir dire of the special venire, the prosecution requested that the court make a finding of fact concerning the competency and effectiveness of the attorneys for the defense counsel on their withdrawal of the motion for change of venue, especially in light of the quote, fixed opinions that we have had within Perry County, Mississippi on the death penalty issue as well as this particular case. The prosecution requested that the trial court make a finding of fact that defense counsels' decision was tactical and not ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court responded that he believed that defense counsel were extremely competent, with extensive experience in capital cases, and requested that Paul Woodward comment on the issue. Woodward stated, I have no problem with my attorneys. I regard both of them with a highest degree of respect. And as a matter of fact keeping the trial here was my decision and they are abiding by my wishes. The trial court found that defense counsel were very competent, proficient and professional. ¶ 42. Woodward now contends that the withdrawal of the motion to change venue prevented him from having a fair and impartial jury and constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Woodward asserts that his decision regarding the motion was based on erroneous information received from his attorneys, that his attorneys had told him if venue was changed, it would be changed to the coast, and that his attorneys did not discuss with him the possibility that venue might be changed to Adams County. Woodward also states that he would have agreed to have his case heard in Adams County. ¶ 43. Woodward's claim has failed to meet the requirements of Strickland to show ineffective assistance of counsel. The affidavits of Michael Adelman and Terryl Rushing show that their decision to withdraw the motion to change venue was sound trial strategy. In her affidavit, Terryl Rushing states that after the 1994 mistrial, they thought that it might be impossible to seat a jury in Perry County and for this reason the District Attorney would have to relent and forgo the prosecution of the death penalty. This was a strong reason for us keeping the trial in Perry County in 1995. In his affidavit, Michael Adelman states, However, we later decided to withdraw the transfer motion. We did this after full consultation with our client. I read the transcript from Paul's first trial and felt the Hinds County jury was very hostile toward Paul. I also did not want to go to the coast, because the victim was from Jackson County. It was my opinion that a Perry County jury could contain a number of white, blue collar men who would be able to relate to Paul and feel some sympathy for him. At Paul's 1994 sentencing a mistrial was declared because a jury could not be seated. The potential jurors were either against the death penalty or were too prejudiced against Paul. After further discussions with Mr. Woodward, we decided to keep the case in Perry County. It also clear from the record that the suggestion of moving the trial to Natchez in Adams County was only briefly mentioned. Woodward was present in chambers during all discussions regarding possible options for moving the trial. In discussing those options, Adelman indicated that Natchez was one of a few places that they might consider moving the trial to. In response the trial judge pointed out that in order to change venue, the new location has to agree that the trial can be held there. ¶ 44. The defense's decision to withdraw the motion for change of venue was clearly a matter of trial strategy. The defendant and his counsel made an informed choice to withdraw the motion. Woodward has failed to show that his attorneys' performance was deficient. Woodward has also failed to show any prejudice to his defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. This issue is without merit.