## Facts

- Leonard Eugene Maine and Thomas Eugene Braun were indicted in Mendocino County for murder, kidnapping (two counts), forcible rape, and assault with intent to commit murder.
- The alleged crimes occurred in a small rural county where the victims were well known in the community and the defendants were essentially outsiders.
- The case generated extensive local newspaper, radio, and television coverage, including reports of purported confessions, alleged criminal histories, and detailed accounts of the crimes.
- The media coverage and community reaction portrayed the defendants in highly unfavorable terms and contributed to local belief in their guilt.
- Defendants moved for a change of venue under Penal Code § 1033 and submitted affidavits and media exhibits to show hostility and likely juror bias.
- The superior court denied the motions, finding a fair and impartial trial could be held in Mendocino County.
- Defendants petitioned the California Supreme Court for writs of mandate directing the superior court to grant a change of venue.

## Issues

1. Whether mandamus is available before trial to review a nonappealable order denying a criminal defendant’s motion for change of venue.
2. Whether pretrial publicity and local sentiment created a reasonable likelihood that defendants could not obtain a fair and impartial jury trial in Mendocino County, requiring a change of venue.

## Decision

- The court held mandamus is an available pretrial remedy to test a nonappealable order denying a change of venue when necessary to protect the right to a fair trial and when appeal after judgment is not an adequate remedy.
- The court found the defendants’ evidentiary showing established a reasonable likelihood they could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Mendocino County.
- The court granted the petitions and directed the superior court to vacate its denials and enter orders granting a change of venue.

## Legal Principles

- A change of venue is required when there is a reasonable likelihood that, because of pretrial publicity, community hostility, or related factors, a defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial jury trial in the county of prosecution.
- The venue inquiry focuses on the probable impact of publicity and community sentiment on the jury pool, not on proof of actual bias by identified jurors.
- Mandamus may be used to obtain pretrial review of a nonappealable order affecting a fundamental right when post-judgment appeal would be inadequate to prevent irreparable loss of that right.
- Administrative inconvenience from transferring a serious criminal trial cannot override the constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court authorized pretrial mandamus review of venue denials and ordered a change of venue where pervasive, prejudicial publicity and small-community dynamics made it reasonably likely the defendants could not obtain an impartial jury in the original county.


Maine v. Superior Court, 68 Cal. 2d 375, 438 P.2d 372 (Cal. 1968)