Court Opinion

ID: 9605306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:33:39.249942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:27.468961
License: Public Domain

BIRD, C. J.
I dissent.
The well-established law of this state mandates that a motion for a change of venue must be granted whenever there is any doubt that a fair trial can reasonably be held in the county in which a crime is to be tried. (Martinez v. Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 574, 577-578 [174 Cal.Rptr. 701, 629 P.2d 502] and cases cited; Maine v. Superior Court (1968) 68 Cal.2d 375, 387-388 [66 Cal.Rptr. 724, 438 P.2d 372].)
Here, the evidence raises a strong doubt about the likelihood of a fair trial in Contra Costa County. The majority reach the opposite conclusion only by seriously mischaracterizing the nature of the pretrial publicity in this case. In fact, the publicity was hostile and continuous, contained damaging disclosures about the “evidence” against petitioner, and infected most, if not all, of Contra Costa County. Judged by the standards promulgated by this court in past cases and purportedly relied on by the majority here, petitioner has demonstrated that the pretrial publicity about his case necessitates a change of venue.
The majority’s conclusion is all the more disturbing in light of the fact that the petitioner faces the possibility of the death penalty. This court has pledged that in capital cases, cases “of utmost gravity” involving “the gravest consequences to petitioner,” motions for a change of venue will be given particularly careful consideration. (Martinez, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 583-584.) The majority in this case fail to live up to that pledge.
In addition, the majority here sanction a procedure that this court has rejected repeatedly in past cases, and create a virtual presumption that venue need not be changed before voir dire. The result will be a troubling increase in the number of cases tried in counties in which extensive publicity has made a fair trial impossible, and a consequent increase in the number of convictions which will have to be reversed after trial.
*948I must respectfully dissent from this short-sighted repudiation of the change of venue principles adopted by a unanimous court in Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d 375, and followed consistently until today (see Martinez, supra, 29 Cal.3d 574).
I.
This court recently reiterated the standards to be applied to a pretrial writ of mandate seeking to compel a change of venue. (Martinez, supra, at pp. 577-578.) The appellate court must make an independent evaluation of the evidence, and must grant a motion whenever “ ‘ “there is a reasonable likelihood that in the absence of such relief, a fair trial cannot be had. ... A showing of actual prejudice shall not be required.” ’ . . . [A]ny doubt as to the necessity of removal to another county should be resolved in favor of a venue change. [Citations.]” (Ibid.) The relevant factors in examining the evidence include “the extent and kind of the publicity as well as the size of the community . . . [,] [t]he nature and gravity of the crime . . . [and] the standing of the victim and the accused in the community. [Citations.]” (Id., at p. 578.)
Petitioner submitted to the trial court over 150 newspaper articles concerning his case, as well as approximately 140 pages of transcripts of television and radio news broadcasts. Much of the publicity was prejudicial to petitioner, either because of its hostility to him and sympathy for the victims, or because it disclosed factual information likely to create a belief in his guilt.
Press coverage of petitioner and his alleged crimes became widespread immediately after the death of Officer Swartz and petitioner’s arrest. The media consistently reported that he was apprehended only after a “massive manhunt,” complete with scores of police officers, helicopters, dogs and SWAT teams. Although the Attorney General points to one article indicating that the crowd observing the “manhunt” was calm and peaceful, most of the press painted quite a different picture. Television and radio broadcasts and newspaper articles reported that the crowd “yelled for police to kill him, ” and that the police feared for petitioner’s safety after his arrest. One newspaper deemed it appropriate to quote an observer who said, “I hope they blow that sucker to bits. I’d hate to see him walk out of there.” The article noted that those around him shared his sentiments. A woman said, “I kind of hoped they’d bring that guy out looking like a piece of swiss cheese.” Further, when an officer “prodded” petitioner “none too gently in the back with the end of his weapon, the crowd cheered again. ” A newspaper reported that a local citizen said, “if he is responsible for the two murders,” petitioner “should die.”
In the following weeks, the newspaper coverage continued to relate information likely to arouse hostility toward petitioner. His prior record was discussed *949at length, including such remote matters as his suspension from high school for fighting. The dispute over whether he should be shackled or otherwise restrained in the courtroom was covered extensively. The sheriff’s deputies provided detailed explanations of their fear that petitioner could not be guarded by a single deputy. Police officials were quoted as saying that petitioner was known to them as “super bad.”
Petitioner’s ex-wife and relatives contributed to the parade of inflammatory publicity, telling the press that he became violent when taking medicine after an accident which resulted in part of his brain being removed, and that he had threatened to harm family members. It was reported that petitioner’s ex-wife left him because she knew he would never “straighten up.”
At the same time, the press provided extensive coverage of the outpouring of grief and sympathy at Officer Swartz’s death. A fund to aid his survivors was established within 24 hours of his death, and quickly raised $50,000. Many articles described his young family—2 children and a 22-year-old wife who was pregnant at the time of his death. He was bom and raised in Contra Costa County.
Hundreds of officers attended his funeral. Colleagues and local citizens described him as a model police officer who had had an admirable impact on the lives of those he served. Newspaper coverage of his life and death was revived when the Chamber of Commerce named him Man of the Year, when his first wife sued his widow, demanding a share of the memorial fund on behalf of her child, and again when his third child was bom, three and one-half months after his death.1
A renewed burst of publicity described the public defender’s attempts to withdraw from the case—in terms which strongly implied that the office found the defense of petitioner distasteful.
In addition to publicity likely to inflame the public and arouse hostility toward petitioner, widespread discussions of “evidence” tending to point toward his guilt was equally prejudicial. Here, as in People v. Tidwell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 62, 70 [89 Cal.Rptr. 44, 473 P.2d 748], “a good deal of the prosecution’s case was presented out of court before the trial.” The public was informed that Brian Odle, petitioner’s nephew, had surrendered to the police in *950the Aguilar homicide. Immediately thereafter, the newspapers reported that the police believed that petitioner, not Brian, had actually stabbed Aguilar.2 An acting police chief reportedly supplied a motive for this homicide, telling reporters that petitioner killed Aguilar because she overheard his plans to kill another person.
Graphic details of Aguilar’s death were printed, including the statement that she was found “screaming and bleeding profusely from numerous stab wounds.” A neighbor was quoted as saying, “I saw the stab wounds. I saw her intestines on her stomach and her hair was all matted with blood.” The newspapers reported detailed physical evidence linking petitioner to the Aguilar killing—his nephew’s wallet left at the scene, bloodstains in a stolen van that petitioner was seen driving, reports that a similar van was observed at the scene of the homicide.
Television, radio and newspaper accounts were even more positive in stating that petitioner had killed Officer Swartz. Lengthy eyewitness accounts of the killing were printed. Most of those said that Swartz was killed while trying to arrest Odie—thus resolving the issue underlying one of the special circumstances allegations (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(5), charging that the murder was committed to avoid arrest). Again, physical evidence linking petitioner to the homicide was reported in detail.
“When a spectacular crime has aroused community attention and a suspect has been arrested, the possibility of an unfair trial may originate in widespread publicity describing facts, statements and circumstances which tend to create a belief in his guilt, [f] Indispensable to any morally acceptable system of criminal justice is a verdict based upon evidence and argument received in open court, not from outside sources. When community attention is focused upon the suspect of a spectacular crime, the news media’s dissemination of incriminatory circumstances sharply threatens the integrity of the coming trial. The prosecution may never offer the ‘evidence’ served up by the media. It may be inaccurate. Its inculpatory impact may diminish as new facts develop. It may be inadmissible at the trial as a matter of law. It may be hearsay. Its potentiality for prejudice may outweigh its tendency to prove guilt. It may have come to light as the product of an unconstitutional search and seizure. If it is ultimately admitted at the trial, the possibility of prejudice still exists, for it had entered the minds of potential jurors without the accompaniment of cross-examination or rebuttal. The goal of a fair trial in the locality of the crime is practically unattainable when the jury panel has been bathed in streams of circumstantial incrimination flowing from the news media.” (Corona v. Superior Court (1972) 24 *951Cal.App.3d 872, 877-878 [101 Cal.Rptr. 411], fns. omitted; Martinez, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pp. 580-581; Tidwell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at pp. 70, 75-76; Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 384.)
The result of this massive publicity about petitioner, the victims, the brutal nature of the crimes, and the “evidence” tending to point to his guilt, was predictable and understandable. All indications are that the community was shocked and horrified—and that it held petitioner responsible. The reactions of the crowd that gathered to watch petitioner’s arrest are one powerful indication of this general attitude. In addition, a Contra Costa County supervisor, in a column that appeared in two county newspapers, said, “Such events stir a passion and hatred for the suspect.” A local judge felt it necessary to disqualify himself from petitioner’s case because of “the very real prejudice” he had toward petitioner. He said, “I think if he’s guilty he’s an animal . . . .”
In light of the barrage of prejudicial publicity, and the strong indications of bias and hostility in the community, the majority’s conclusion that there is no doubt that petitioner can obtain a fair trial in Contra Costa County is unsupportable. Virtually all of the factors relied on in prior change of venue cases are present here: sensational and brutal crimes; inflammatory or prejudicial publicity; widespread discussion of incriminatory evidence; a defendant who lacked even family support and, as an ex-felon with a lengthy record, was of low status in the community; a prominent and respected victim; “pervasive civic involvement in the fate of a victim” (Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 385); financial disputes relating to the case.
The majority express a fear that if a change of venue is ordered in this case, venue will have to be changed in every capital case. I do not agree. This case involved sensational features which naturally led to extensive publicity: a brutal, gory stabbing, a massive police manhunt, the death of a young, well-respected police officer who was survived by a young family and a pregnant wife.3
As Justice Mosk said in Frazier v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 287, 295 [95 Cal.Rptr. 798, 486 P.2d 694], “This was not an ‘ordinary’ homicide, such as all too often occurs in the course of a robbery of a liquor store or a service station, or during a family dispute; we entertain no doubt that the defendants in *952those cases can receive unbiased trials . . . .” Rather, “[c]ases sometimes occur, and this would appear to be one of them, in which the very enormity of the offense itself arouses the honest indignation of the community to such a degree as to make it apparent that a dispassionate investigation of the case cannot be had. Under such circumstances the law requires that the place of trial be changed.” (People v. Yoakum (1879) 53 Cal. 566, 571.)
I also cannot agree with the majority’s assertion that the size of Contra Costa County and the geographic distribution of its populace dispel the presumption of prejudice created by this extensive publicity. The size of the county is but one of the factors which must be considered in evaluating a motion for a change of venue. (Martinez, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 578.) This court has taken care to emphasize that “a large city may . . . also become so hostile to a defendant as to make a fair trial unlikely.” (Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 387, fn. 13; see also Fain v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 46, 52, fn. 1 [84 Cal.Rptr. 135, 465 P.2d 23].) The Courts of Appeal have taken this possibility seriously, ordering venue changes from San Mateo County (Steffen v. Municipal Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 623 [145 Cal.Rptr. 782]) and Los Angeles County (Smith v. Superior Court (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 145 [80 Cal.Rptr. 693].)
The decision to require a change of venue turns not on a mechanical measurement of the size of the county, but on an evaluation of the extent of the publicity and the effect it probably had on the community. Population size may help in judging that effect, but it cannot be determinative per se. Larger counties, for instance, may have newspapers with wider circulation—and thus be just as infected by prejudicial pretrial publicity as a smaller county with only a local press.
The majority here admit that three newspapers flooded their readership with publicity about petitioner’s case, the Contra Costa Times, the West County Times, and the North East Bay Independent and Gazette. Their assumption that this publicity remained in the western third of the county is not supported by the record.
First, the Contra Costa Times, which covered all aspects of petitioner’s case extensively, is a countywide newspaper. It is the largest paper in the county, with a circulation of 100,000.4 Second, although the West County Times and the North East Bay Independent and Gazette are published in the western portion of the county, nothing in the record indicates that they were purchased and *953read only by residents of those areas. In fact, since the western portion of the county is the industrialized, urban sector, many residents of the suburban and rural areas are probably employed in the west—and carry newspapers purchased there back to their homes.
The majority also rely heavily on the passage of time since the homicides occurred. Petitioner acknowledges that the heaviest barrage of publicity occurred during the weeks immediately following the killings. However, a steady stream of coverage has continued since then. Testimony at the preliminary hearing was printed in great detail. “[Bjvery procedural step taken” has been reported in depth. (Fain, supra, 2 Cal.3d at p. 50.) A number of unusual and highly memorable twists, fully covered in the press, have kept alive the memory of the initial bursts of publicity: Swartz’s Man of the Year award; his ex-wife’s lawsuit against his widow; the public defender’s withdrawal from the case; a lawsuit filed by petitioner against the county, charging police brutality; and the repeated motions for change of venue.
In addition, this continuous coverage of every stage of petitioner’s case indicates that future events will be thoroughly reported as well. Thus, it is likely that the Contra Costa newspapers will follow the progress of the case after this court renders its decision, as trial is set and jury selection begins. The detailed, prejudicial information already disseminated throughout the county will be reviewed once more in the press. Prospective jurors will be reminded of any of the details of the case they may have forgotten or overlooked in the past months.
Given this steady barrage of publicity, local residents will not have forgotten what they read and heard about petitioner and the crimes with which he is charged. Since all doubts about the effect of such publicity must be resolved in favor of a change of venue, I think it clear that petitioner has more than amply demonstrated the need for such a change in his case.
The careful application of change of venue principles is of special importance in capital cases. As this court stated just last year, “when a defendant’s life is at stake, the rule that all doubts be resolved in favor of venue change, takes on particular significance. Neither an accused whose life hangs in balance nor the authorities charged with enforcing and administering the law should be required to face the possibility of a second trial when, as here, we face acute dangers to an impartial trial and when we can avoid them by the simple expedient of a change of venue.” (Martinez, supra, 29 Cal.3d at p. 585.)
In addition to the gravity of the offense and its consequences both for the accused and for society, capital cases differ from other criminal prosecutions in *954that the role of the jury, if the trial reaches the penalty phase, is dramatically altered. “Just as the sentence of death is unique, so is the role of the penalty jury.” (People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 771, fn. 34 [175 Cal.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446].) The death penalty jury must “express the conscience of the community on the ultimate question of life or death.” (Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510, 519 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 783, 88 S.Ct. 1770], fn. omitted; Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1, 73, fn. 122 [168 Cal.Rptr. 128, 616 P.2d 1301].) “[O]ne of the most important functions any jury can perform in making such a selection [between life and death] is to maintain a link between contemporary community values and the penal system—a link without which the determination of punishment could hardly reflect ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. ’ [Citation.]” (Witherspoon, supra, 391 U.S. at p. 519, fn. 15 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 783].)
Where a death penalty case is tried in a county in which there has been extensive publicity, a significant proportion of the community will become ineligible to serve on the jury. Those excused because of their exposure to pretrial publicity are likely to be the most honest, self-aware, and informed members of the jury pool. (See People v. Harris (1981) 28 Cal.3d 935, 983 [171 Cal.Rptr. 679, 623 P.2d 240] [dis. opn. of Bird, C. J.].) “Whatever the impact of the removal of these jurors upon the guilt determination, the impact on the penalty phase is likely to be devastating. At that phase, where jurors are given the most discretion and where the jury verdicts are supposed to express that undefinable quality known as the conscience of the community, the law removes from the jury those who are most informed about the community.” (Ibid.)
A simple change of venue would remove this obstacle to a fair, representative guilt and penalty phase jury. That remedy should be used here. “Why courts should hesitate to grant a change of venue in a proper case, I cannot understand. . . . [Is] it feared the defendant would escape if he were allowed a fair trial?” (People v. Suesser (1901) 132 Cal. 631, 635 [64 P. 1095].)
n.
In addition to misapplying settled standards governing motions for change of venue, the majority opinion errs in establishing a new procedure for trial court and appellate review of such motions. Although at one point the opinion purports to intend no change in the well-established law, specific language in part IV, as well as the overall thrust of the discussion, makes it clear that a substantial change will inevitably result from today’s decision.
The majority assert that they “do not deviate” froin the principle that any doubt as to the necessity for a change of venue should be resolved in favor of *955the motion, whether the request is raised before or after voir dire. (Maj. opn., ante at p. 946.) At one point the majority seem to indicate that they are doing no more than reiterating what was said in Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d at page 381—if a motion for a change of venue is denied before voir dire, the trial court has authority to reconsider the motion after jury selection. (Maj. opn., ante at p. 943.)
However, language elsewhere in the opinion belies this claim of adherence to the settled rule. The majority opinion discusses with apparent approval the advantages of considering a change of venue motion only after voir dire. At that time, according to the majority, the decision can be based on “more precise measurement and evaluation” and facts, rather than on “speculation.” (Maj. opn., ante at pp. 943-944, 946-947.)
As I read this language, the implicit instruction to the lower courts is that decisions on change of venue motions may be postponed until after voir dire. Only when unusual circumstances force the court to change venue immediately must such a motion be granted before jury selection begins. The majority thus appear to establish a preference for resolution of change of venue motions after voir dire.
With due respect, such a preference would be impractical, contrary to precedent, and based on an inaccurate perception of the efficacy of voir dire. Further, it would eliminate any possibility of pretrial appellate review of change of venue motions.
The majority indicate that motions to change venue should be renewed after voir dire, so that they can be decided based on “facts” rather than “speculation.” Just when does the majority expect the motion to be renewed? During voir dire it will still be premature. Even if the first potential jurors appear to be prejudiced against the accused, there will be no way to determine whether they are atypical or represent a community-wide pattern. However, once voir dire ends, the jury is ready to be sworn. When that happens, jeopardy attaches. To avoid double jeopardy problems, the accused must renew the motion after the completion of jury selection but before the official swearing of the jury—events that usually occur almost simultaneously. And whether the motion is renewed during voir dire, immediately after jury selection is completed, or during trial, there will be no time to prepare the motion, no time to obtain transcripts of voir dire, and, realistically, no likelihood of convincing the trial court to grant the motion.
*956Moreover, as this court noted in Maine, “Experience shows . . . that trial courts are often reluctant to order a venue change after a jury has been empaneled.” (Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 380.) Maine authorizes defense counsel to renew their motions after voir dire—but only as a complement to a thorough consideration of the merits of the motions before jury selection begins. Here, the majority implies that post-voir dire consideration of change of venue motions can replace serious review of such motions before voir dire. Such a procedure was specifically rejected by Maine. (Id., at pp. 380-381; Clifton v. Superior Court (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 245, 252 [86 Cal.Rptr. 612].)
Not only is the majority’s apparent preference for a post-voir dire motion impractical, it is also based on the discredited notion that voir dire will expose the exact level of prejudice in the community. This court has repeatedly noted that voir dire is often ineffective in uncovering bias. “In an antagonistic atmosphere ‘there will remain the problem of obtaining accurate answers on voir dire—is the juror consciously or subconsciously harboring prejudice against the accused resulting from widespread news coverage in the community [?]’” (Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 380.) Even where “all of the jurors selected claim[] the ability to sit impartially, such a claim is of course not conclusive.” (Tidwell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 73.)
As the Court of Appeal noted in Corona v. Superior Court, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at pages 878-879, “Questioned on voir dire as to the effect of the media’s evidentiary disclosures, one prospective juror may deny or admit awareness, another disclaim or admit prejudgment. One may falsely deny both knowledge and prejudice for the sake of a place on the jury. An honest juror may admit knowledge or tentative prejudgment and find himself excluded. Many will sincerely try to set aside their preconceptions and give assurance of impartiality, yet unconsciously bend to the influence of initial impressions gained from the news media.” Continuing in footnote 6, at page 879, the court added, “Authoritative decisions now recognize the lack of realism inherent in expectations that jurors can insulate their verdict from inadmissible knowledge. [Citations.] [f] When prejudicial publicity has been injected into jurors’ consciousness, the courts do not give dispositive effect to jurors’ assurances of impartiality. [Citations.] [f] ‘To expect a juror to confess prejudice is not always a reliable practice. A juror can be completely honest in denying prejudice. In the words of Alexander Pope, “All looks yellow to the jaundiced eye.” ’ [Citation.]”
In addition, there is the danger in any well-publicized case that the very process of voir dire, with its repeated questions about publicity and prejudice, will tend to prejudice the jury. Listening to other jurors’ comments and observing the widespread press and community involvement in the case, the jurors are *957likely to develop a bias even if they did not harbor one before the commencement of voir dire.5 (See also Corona, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at p. 881.)
Perhaps the most serious problem with the majority opinion is its failure to acknowledge that postponing serious review of these motions until after voir dire would completely eliminate the possibility of pretrial appellate review of change of venue motions. As the court said in Maine, “It would be inopportune ... to permit a defendant to seek mandamus during or after empaneling the jury. [Citation.] Due regard for the orderly progress of a trial dictates that a defendant apply for a writ of mandate in advance of trial . . . .” (Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 381.) And just two years after Maine was decided, this court reemphasized that a writ of mandate generally is not available after voir dire begins, pointing out that Maine “recognized that mandate should lie only in advance of jury selection to avoid disruption of the ‘orderly progress of a trial . . . .’ ” (Tidwell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 68, italics added.)
Consideration of the practicalities of the situation demonstrates the wisdom of this rule. When the trial court has denied a motion for a change of venue both before and after voir dire, with the trial about to start, how could a defendant possibly seek appellate review? The trial would have to be stayed, at great inconvenience to the jury and witnesses. And what court will issue such a stay, especially if jeopardy has attached? Once again, there will be no time to thoroughly prepare the writ, or even the request for a stay, and no time to review transcripts of the voir dire. Appellate review after the completion of voir dire is barred by the lack of time as well as by the rule enunciated in Maine and Tidwell.6
*958The majority opinion does not even mention these problems. The obvious result of this decision will be an increase in the number of cases going to trial despite meritorious claims that venue must be changed—and, therefore, in the number of convictions that must be reversed because denial of the change of venue led to denial of the right to a fair trial, “the most fundamental of all freedoms” (Estes v. Texas (1965) 381 U.S. 532, 540 [14 L.Ed.2d 543, 549, 85 S.Ct. 1628]). However, “ ‘reversals are but palliatives ... the cure lies in those remedial measures that will prevent the prejudice at its inception ....’” (Maine, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 384, quoting Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966) 384 U.S. 333, 363 [16 L.Ed.2d 600, 620, 86 S.Ct. 1507].) Here, the only true cure is the one this court has followed since Maine: meaningful consideration of pretrial motions for change of venue before voir dire, based on the record of publicity and the inferences about prejudice that can be drawn from that record.
m.
I must dissent both from the majority’s application of standard change of venue principles to this case and from its unwise tampering with the procedure by which motions for venue change should be decided. I would issue the writ.

 In light of this widespread publicity about Officer Swartz, I fail to understand how the majority conclude that “the effect of the status and prominence of the two victims” on the motion for change of venue “is inconclusive.” (Maj. opn., ante at p. 941.) Although Aguilar was an ordinary citizen, Swartz was a young, highly respected police officer, killed in the line of duty, whose death prompted a flood of publicity about his life, career and family. Swartz’s status is of particular significance since two of the special circumstances charged against petitioner relate specifically to the allegation that he killed a police officer.

 Thus, although there were no reports of a confession here, there were reports which strongly implied that a codefendant—a relative—had implicated petitioner. (See Tidwell, supra, 3 Cal.3d at p. 70.)

 The majority opinion argues that bias against petitioner as an accused “cop killer” will follow petitioner to wherever his trial is held. (Maj. opn., ante at p. 942.) However, in a different county, the members of the jury pool will not have been exposed to extensive out-of-court reports about the details of the killing or about the victim’s life and family. Nor will they have lived with this event as a local tragedy, as have the citizens of Contra Costa County. Further, as the Court of Appeal said in Corona, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at page 883, “If perfection is not within reach, optimum conditions are.” If petitioner cannot escape the odium associated with the accusation that he killed a police officer, he can at least be tried in a county free from the taint of extensive pretrial publicity.

 The reported population figure for Contra Costa County (666,000) includes children and others ineligible to serve on juries. The number of people in the potential juror pool is much lower. Considering that newspapers are often read by more than one adult in each household, the Contra Costa Times alone probably reached a large percentage of those eligible to serve on the jury in petitioner’s case.

 Although the majority opinion notes with approval that the trial courts in Contra Costa County have adopted a process of individual voir dire on questions relating to pretrial publicity, the majority do not hold that such sequestered voir dire is necessary in all cases in which a change of venue is sought. In Hovey v. Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal.3d at page 81, footnote 137, this court noted that sequestered questioning about the impact of pretrial publicity has not been required. In the absence of such a requirement, I must assume that the procedure suggested by the majority will be used even in counties where sequestered voir dire is not employed.

 The majority’s apparent preference for post-voir dire motions raises other problems. In many counties, change of venue motions are handled at a pretrial motions calendar, presided over by a judge who is not likely to handle the trial. Hearings on these motions frequently consume considerable court time. Competent appraisal of the often copious exhibits requires still more hours of preparation by the judge in chambers.
The majority’s preference for consideration of change of venue motions after voir dire will wreak havoc with these local procedures. Either the trial judge will have to duplicate the motion judge’s efforts, reviewing all of the evidence and testimony originally presented with the motion, or the motion calendar procedure will have to be abandoned. Both scenarios are unfortunate. The former will double the time and effort involved in change of venue motions, and the latter will disrupt the orderly processing of criminal cases.
I suspect many courts will respond to today’s decision by assigning all such motions to the trial judge in the first instance, to be handled as in limine matters. But this procedure will have untoward consequences, too. The start of trial will be delayed—possibly in violation of the speedy trial provisions of Penal Code section 1382. In addition, preconviction appellate review *958of the trial judge’s ruling will become virtually impossible, although this court has repeatedly recognized that pretrial writ review of change of venue motions is preferable to appellate review of convictions after lengthy trials.