Change of Venue

Definition

A change of venue is the removal of a trial from one district or county to another or from one court to another. The venue can be changed for convenience or justice in a civil trial.

If you use FactLogic to justify a change of venue, you can know exactly which facts could cause injustice in the current venue and the degree to which it would exist – if any. Knowledge obtained from using FactLogic will also help with subsequent jury selection.

 To demonstrate possible injustice within a venue, do the following:

• Select The Alternate Venue.

• Create The Case. Create your case by entering some case information, the key facts, and one or more assertions to be proved by the facts.

• Copy The Case. Copy the case so you won’t mingle evaluations from the two venues. Simply click, "Copy Case."

• Select Evaluators. Randomly draw a number of evaluators from the venire in each venue, and assign them to the appropriate copy of the case. The more evaluators, the better; the number of evaluators from the two venues needn't be equal.

• Select Measures of Injustice. Each evaluator will judge the probabilities for each fact. From these probabilities, FactLogic will determine the probably that each assertion is true, determine the margin for each assertion (defined below), and predict the verdict. There are four measures of injustice - some more appropriate than others. Select the appropriate measure of injustice.

• Analyze Results. The statistics computed by FactLogic may clearly demonstrate that injustice could result in the current venue. If injustice is not clearly demonstrated, you can conduct a test of significance on any measure of injustice. Basically, the test of significance would determine whether the selected measure from the two venues are significantly different.

1. Create and Copy The Case

Create your case: Include, at least, the assertion of most interest to the change of venue request, and include the key facts for this or other assertions.

Make a copy of your case for each venue so that evaluations aren't mingled (i.e., simply click, Copy Case).

2. Select Evaluators

Select two groups of evaluators, one in the current venue and one in the proposed venue. Evaluators should be drawn randomly from the venire in each venue. Local records or market research companies can provide evaluators¹:

Evaluator Information. If possible, obtain demographic characteristics and life experience information from the two groups of evaluators. This information will help with subsequent jury selection: Evaluators who have certain characteristics or experiences might judge key facts correspondingly, and you need to know this before voir dire.

Number of Evaluators. The two groups of evaluators needn't be the same size, but larger is better. The size of the groupswill be dictated by either

• practical considerations (i.e., time or budget) or

• the desired precision.

3, Select Measures of Injustice

FactLogic provides the following four measures. Any of them could be considered measures of injustice:

Measure Provided Directly by Evaluators:

• Probability. Even one probability for a key fact that is significantly higher or lower in one venue could indicate injustice.

Measures Determined by FactLogic (from values provided by evaluators): Since all facts are not known at this time, the following measures should be judged accordingly.

• Assertion. Probability the assertion is true.

• Margin for An Assertion. Difference between the probability the assertion is true and the standard of proof (i.e., preponderance of the evidence). This difference is a more accurate measure of injustice than is the probability an assertion is true (by itself) because jurors decide on this difference. This difference will be called the margin in the following text.

• Predicted Verdict for An Assertion.

Select any of these measures.

4. Analyze Results

Any of the measures of injustice listed in Section 3 can be analyzed. The margin (i.e., the difference between the probability the assertion is true and the standard of proof) and the predicted verdict  are unusually compelling.

To justify a change of venue, compare the measure of injustice from the current venue to the measure of injustice from the proposed venue. If the difference between them is significant, the justification for a change of venue is scientifically demonstrated. However, if the probabilities the assertions are true are small, the request for a change of venue might not be justified because injustice would probably be insignificant.

Convex Corporation can provide the statistical tests of significance for any measures you choose (except the predicted verdict).

Summary

The possible need for a change of venue can be demonstrated by randomly selecting a group of evaluators in the current venue and a group of evaluators in the proposed venue. Create your case, make a copy for each venue, select the evaluators from the venire in each venue, select one or more measures of injustice. Obtain demographic data and measures of injustice from both groups of evaluators; you can use this information for voir dire.

Employ one or more statistical tests and show that a selected measure of injustice is significantly greater in the current venue than in the proposed venue.

Footnotes

¹ Convex Corporation may be able to provide evaluators.