## Facts

- LAPD officers Laurence M. Powell, Theodore J. Briseno, Stacey C. Koon, and Timothy E. Wind were criminally charged for using force against Rodney Glen King after a police pursuit on March 3, 1991.
- A bystander videotaped much of the encounter; the tape was widely broadcast locally and internationally and became a focal point of public debate about police brutality and race relations.
- Media coverage was massive and sustained, including repeated broadcasts of the videotape, commentary and editorials condemning the officers, and extensive reporting on related political conflict within Los Angeles city government and LAPD oversight.
- Defense submissions included public-opinion surveys indicating most county residents had seen the videotape and many had concluded the officers used excessive force and should be convicted.
- The record also included public statements warning of possible civil unrest if the case were transferred or if the outcome was unpopular.
- The officers moved for a change of venue under California Penal Code § 1033; after an evidentiary hearing, the superior court denied the motion.
- The officers sought writ relief; the Court of Appeal stayed trial and jury selection pending resolution of the petition.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Penal Code § 1033 by denying a change of venue where pervasive and prejudicial pretrial publicity and related political controversy created a reasonable likelihood the defendants could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Los Angeles County.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief and held the trial court abused its discretion in denying the change of venue motion.
- The court found a reasonable likelihood that a fair and impartial trial could not be had in Los Angeles County.
- The court issued a peremptory writ directing the superior court to vacate its denial order, grant the venue motion, and transfer the case to another county.
- The stay of trial and jury selection remained in effect to the extent necessary to accomplish transfer.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 1033, a criminal case must be transferred when there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county.
- The reasonable-likelihood determination considers factors including: (1) nature and gravity of the offense, (2) extent and nature of media coverage, (3) size of the community, (4) defendant’s status in the community, and (5) prominence of the victim and the accused.
- The standard does not require proof that an unfair trial is certain; it asks whether the probability of prejudice is sufficiently high despite available safeguards.
- A court may order transfer before voir dire when publicity is so pervasive and emotionally charged that voir dire and instructions are unlikely to neutralize prejudice.
- Qualitative features of publicity, including repeated broadcast of central evidentiary material and one-sided commentary assuming guilt, may weigh heavily toward transfer.
- Large community size does not preclude transfer when exposure is widespread and pre-judgment is intense.

## Conclusion

The court required transfer because the videotape-driven publicity, survey-confirmed community pre-judgment, and intense political backdrop created a reasonable likelihood that local jurors could not remain impartial, making the denial of venue change an abuse of discretion under Penal Code § 1033.


Powell v. Superior Court, 232 Cal. App. 3d 785 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)