GEAUGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS Case: 19000083, eFile ID: 26124, FILED: ONDREY, DAVID M 12/03/2019 09:53 AM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO ‘ CASE NO. 19000083 Plaintifi(s) : JUDGE DAVID M. ONDREY vs ORDER GAIL M RITCHEY Defendant(s) This matter comes on for consideration of the Defendant's Motion for a Change of Venue filed Oct. 21, 2019. The Defendant argues that so-called extensive pretrial publicity, some of which involved law enforcement officers’ public descriptions of Defendant’s alleged confession and admissions, including a prior act similar to that act which forms the basis for the current indictment, make it impossible for the Defendant to achieve a fair trial in Geauga County. In support of her Motion, the Defendant has supplied the Court under seal with a listing of cites to various local news outlets which carried this story or portions of it. Defendant also provided the court with documentation of certain social media commentary, purporting to show there already exists a local hostile environment against the Defendant precluding a fair and impartial jury. The Court has reviewed these items. ‘The State opposes the Motion and argues before such a Motion should be granted, the Court should first attempt to seat a fair and impartial jury. It further argues that the Defendant must make a clear and manifest showing that even an attempt to seat a jury would be a vain act. This Court concludes the nature and extent of the pretrial publicity involved thus far in this case does not rise to the oft outrageous levels demonstrated in the cases relied upon by the Defendant in support of her Motion. The Court also concludes that an attempt to seat a jury would not necessarily unfair trial.” Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 551-54 (1976). If a juror can lay aside an impression, opinion or preconceived notion as to guilt or innocence, and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court, that juror is suitable to serve. Irvin v Dowd (1961), 366 U.S. 717, 815 S.Ct. 1629. As the Ohio Supreme Court has stated: “[T]he best test of whether prejudicial pretrial publicity has prevented obtaining a fair and impartial jury from the locality is a careful and searching voir dire.” State v Davis, 76 Ohio St.3d 107(1996). As the State argues herein, as a general rule, a trialcourt should make “ ‘a good faith effort to impanel a jury before * * * grant[ting] a motion for a change of venue.’ “ State v Warner, 55 Ohio St.3d 31 (1990) quoting State v Herring, 486 N.B.2d 119 (9 Dist. 1984). In summary, it is pre-mature for the Court to transfer this case without attempting to first seat a jury in Geauga County, Ohio. ( State v Lane III, Case No. 12 C 58, Geauga County Common Pleas, 2012.) There is no clear and manifest showing that it would be a vain act to try to seat a jury in this County. The ruling on the Motion for Change of Venue is deferred until a voir dire in Geauga County is attempted, IT IS SO ORDERED. on. QA — JUDGE DAVID M. 01