Opinion ID: 2391136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: refusal of a change of venue

Text: The appellant maintained that it was reversible error for the lower court to deny his petition, supported by an affidavit of counsel and seasonably filed, praying a change of venue on the ground that an account of the raid, published in the only local newspaper, was so inflammatory and prejudicial as to preclude a fair trial in Howard County. The newspaper article is as follows: 38 ARRESTED IN SURPRISE GUILFORD NIGHT CLUB RAID State and Howard County police joined in a surprise raid early Sunday morning on a elaborate night club on the Guilford Road and arrested thirty-eight of the over hundred there. Seventy-five escaped through the woods and fields. Quantities of liquor and gambling equipment were confiscated at the entertainment set-up covering an acre of ground with both indoor and outdoor bars and games and arrangements for night-club entertainment including `strip-teasers' raiders report. Trooper George Wells lead the raid on the tip of the Rev. Leonard Moore who lives across the road from the establishment which was surrounded by a 7 foot wooden fence on one side, a dense wood on the other and an open field at the back. Edward Wanzer, 37, of Washington, was charged with illegal sale of intoxicating bevevrages and with violation of the gambling laws and was released under a $3,000 bond. The other 37 arrested were charged with disorderly conduct. All but ten posted $17 collateral and others were taken to cells at the Waterloo State police barracks. Wanzer and all but four of these arrested were Negroes. The four white men charged gave Washington addresses. The equipment included hammocks, tables, beach chairs, a barbecue pit and even a fish pond inhabited chiefly by turtles, police said. Outside one shack stood a roulette game and betting table, Trooper Wells said. Inside, the raiders found a well-stocked bar. Inside the second small structure, police found a long gaming table which could be used either for dice or cards, the raiders reported. Another bar and more gambling devices were found inside the house, Wells said. The investigators also discovered an electric alarm system, extending from the gate and into all three structures, the trooper said. We find in it nothing which supports traverser's contention that he was injured by its publication five weeks before the trial. Rather the account appears to be a factual disclosure, and except possibly for the reference to strip-teasers, the reporter seems not to have drawn on his imagination in describing the raid. This article can not with sound reason be characterized as trial by newspaper. No facts were adduced to support the bare assertion of prejudice, and the petition seems unpersuasive on its face. It is difficult to perceive how, without complete suppression of news, an account like the one in question could be made the basis of complaint. The two constitutional guarantees  freedom of the press and a fair trial by an impartial jury  sometimes present difficult problems to courts which are properly alert to protect both. The facts of this case present no such perplexity and we have no occasion on this record to consider or adjudicate questions which may be raised in proper manner upon different factual foundations. See Downs v. State, 111 Md. 241, 73 A. 893; Baltimore Radio Show v. State, 193 Md. 300, 67 A.2d 497; Larch v. State, 201 Md. 52, 92 A.2d 463; Auchincloss v. State, 200 Md. 310, 89 A.2d 605. The petition for removal in non-capital cases is addressed to the discretion of the court. This is, of course, a judicial discretion which, if exercised arbitrarily, is subject to correction on review, and there have been numerous instances, according to Chief Judge Bartol in State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, of review and reversal. We find no abuse of discretion in denying the petition for removal.