Spotlight: Change of venue case requires planning, preparation and packing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From the sixth floor conference room in the law offices of Robert Gevers, visitors can look across the Fort Wayne skyline and see a collection of radio towers standing on the horizon.

The towers represent the media and the flood of information, commentary and entertainment that not only keeps the public abreast of what is happening in their community but can also taint a potential jury and hinder the chance for a fair trial. Such concerns over the sustained and extensive coverage of a high-profile case is why a trial of an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer is being moved from Marion County to the Allen County Courthouse, half a block north of Gevers’ office.

surbeck Surbeck

On March 8, attorneys for the prosecution and the defense in the State of Indiana v. David Bisard, 49G05-1101-FB-002156, appeared in Allen Superior Court 1 for an initial pretrial conference where they began ironing out the details of changing venues with Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck.

Moving a trial from one court to another can be cumbersome and brings with it logistical matters that have to be worked out so the lawyers can focus on presenting their case. Transporting office supplies, reserving hotel rooms, securing conference rooms and learning the demographics of the community before selecting the jury are among the tasks that have to be addressed.

Yet, Surbeck and attorneys involved maintained the dynamics of actually trying the case will remain the same regardless of the location.

“The furniture is different but a courtroom is a courtroom,” Surbeck said. “Once you settle down and everybody gets to work, it doesn’t matter where the courtroom is. Everybody has a job to do and does it.”

courthouse-15col.jpg Allen County Superior Court I is in one of four historic courtrooms in the Allen County Courthouse. This will likely be the courtroom for the trial of Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer David Bisard. (IL Photo/ Marilyn Odendahl)

In February, Marion Superior Judge Grant Hawkins granted the defense motion for a change of venue in the Bisard case because of the media frenzy. Bisard is accused of driving drunk in his police vehicle and crashing it into three motorcyclists, killing one and injuring two others. He has been charged with reckless homicide and multiple operating while intoxicated charges.

Hawkins, in granting the motion for change of venue, pointed to the news coverage that has continued from the initial filing and often includes recaps of the high points in the case.

Attorneys on both sides say the trial date – scheduled tentatively to begin Oct. 15 – is the key to their preparation for trying the case in Allen County. Now that they know when they have to select a jury and present the evidence, they are able to start coordinating things like lodging, transportation of witnesses and how their computers can interface with the electronic devices available in the courtroom.

Surbeck said his first question for the Marion County prosecutors and defense attorneys will be how long they think the Bisard trial will take. Estimates have placed the length at four weeks, and while the judge will give the case as long as it needs, he pointed out he is not going to permit a lot of down time.

“I just think, bottom line, number one – me – and number two – everybody involved – needs to be fair and open-minded and use some common sense,” Surbeck said. “We’ll get through this and get a just result.”

Change is a rarity

The number of change of venue cases in Indiana during 2011 at first blush seems startling at 2,968. However, when calculated against the more than 1.6 million criminal and civil cases filed that year, the number represents less than 1 percent of the total docket, according to the Division of State Court Administration.

Two methods are available for orchestrating a change of venue trial.

Fort Wayne criminal defense attorney Michelle Kraus took part in one method when an out-of-town jury was brought to Allen County. She traveled to Clark County in southern Indiana to seat a jury and remembered having to be prepared to function away from the comforts of her home and office.

“It takes a lot of planning to be able to know who’s going to do what,” Kraus said. “You have to be really detailed.”

Usually, from the moment she woke up she was thinking about the details. Kraus and her team had to figure out where they could find copiers and access printers. They contacted a couple of area attorneys to see if they could commandeer a spare conference room.

The advantage in this type of change of venue is Kraus was able to sleep in her own bed and work from her own office once the trial began.

Marion County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Denise Robinson experienced the other type of change of venue when she tried a murder case in Porter County. She and her colleagues loaded an SUV and U-Haul trailer with staplers, legal pads and computer monitors, among other things, and caravanned to northwest Indiana.

Robinson is the prosecuting attorney on the Bisard case, and she is reviewing the two-page list of items transported to Porter County to help determine what will have to be taken to Allen County.

John Kautzman, partner at Ruckelshaus Kautzman Blackwell Bemis & Hasbrook who is representing Bisard, said his team is figuring out both the logistical and financial challenges of trying the case in a county that is two-and-a-half hours away. Finding hotel rooms and work space are on the to-do list as well as possibly connecting with local counsel in Allen County.

The venue

The Bisard case will likely be tried in Allen Superior Court 1. The courtroom sits behind a set of wooden doors and, like the other historic courtrooms on the third floor of the Allen County Courthouse, it is a feast of colored scagliola, murals and bas-reliefs.

Allen County and Surbeck were chosen by the attorneys on both sides of the Bisard case. The parties presented Hawkins with two lists: the first list identified the counties in which the parties agreed the case could be sent, and the second list named the jurists they would accept to preside over the trial.

When Hawkins determined it was not feasible for him to be away from Marion County for the duration of the trial, the jurists named on the second list were asked if they would be willing to hear the case. Those who agreed were placed on another list from which each side could remove one name.

To select a jury, attorneys who have worked a change of venue case said an important element is knowing the demographics of the community. Being familiar with the background of the jurors, for example, if they reside in a rural or urban area, will help the lawyers not so much determine who to choose but how to present the evidence.

Inevitably, people will start to form opinions about a case based on what they read in the newspaper or see on television. In fact, Kraus wonders if the judge’s instructions to not read anything about the case may inspire some individuals to go home and search Google.

Gevers recalled when he started his career as a deputy prosecutor in Allen County, any murder trial would be splashed above the fold of the local newspapers day after day. Now it seems only the most heinous crimes garner that kind of media attention.

But, he said, while potential jurors may not know about a particular case, they can still be tainted by the books they read and the television shows they watch. Attorneys recognize the influence the media has through criminal justice shows like “CSI” and “Nancy Grace” and movies like “Double Jeopardy,” where dramatic courtroom scenes involve DNA analysis or forensic experts.

At times, Gevers said, jurors expectations have to be lowered.

“I don’t want them to have that false sense of what it’s going to be like, and when it’s not like that, they lose interest, lose sight of the case, get ticked off at me, at the other side, at the judge,” he said. “They come in thinking, ‘I’m going to be entertained.’”

Once a jury is seated, Surbeck will tell them, honestly, that they are going to be mistreated but that he will make sure they are mistreated as little as possible. People called to serve must give up their time and are tasked with doing a difficult job for which they have little training and for which they must reach a unanimous decision.

“People talk about juries,” he said. “People make fun of juries, but juries work very hard to do what they need to do and do very conscientiously.”

Local impact

Allen County court officials and local attorneys are not anticipating that the Bisard trial will create a major disruption. In mid-April, Surbeck’s calendar will start to be cleared in anticipation of the trial, but the local cases should still be tried in a timely fashion.

The courthouse will be able to handle the trial and the likely crush of Indianapolis media while still taking care of its daily business.

“As beautiful as this building is, as beautiful as the courtrooms are,” Allen Superior Court Executive Jerry Noble said, “it’s a working building.”•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.