Sample Solution

In March 2019, a change of venue request was made in the case of State v. Smith. The defendant, Mr. Smith, was accused of armed robbery and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon – both felonies under Arizona’s criminal code (ARS 13-1902). According to court documents, the incident occurred at a local bank when Mr. Smith entered the building brandishing a handgun and demanded money from the tellers. The staff complied and he fled the scene with an undisclosed amount of cash; however, during his escape he fired several shots at police officers as they attempted to apprehend him.

In response to Mr. Smith’s actions, the state charged him with two counts of felony armed robbery (ARS 13-1904) and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (ARS 13-1204), which is classified as a Class 3 felony according to Arizona statute (A.R.S.). The potential sentencing for this crime ranges from five years in prison up to life behind bars depending on aggravating circumstances or any previous criminal history (Justia).

When it came time for trial, Mr. Smith requested that his case be moved out of county due to what he believed would be an inability to secure impartial jurors within Maricopa County given its population size and high profile nature of the incident; thus making it impossible for him receive a fair trial against what experts describe as strong evidence against him put forth by prosecutors (Courts Ca Gov). As per public record information available online, it appears that this request was granted by Judge Susan Brnovich who ordered that all proceedings take place outside Maricopa County in order “to protect [Mr.]Smith’s right towards due process through an unbiased jury selection procedure”(Crime Museum).

Upon research into similar cases across different jurisdictions it is clear that decisions around changing venues are determined primarily based on their ability in providing defendants access towards habeas corpus rights such as not being able to select jurors due high levels community prejudice or media attention surrounding certain crimes – particularly those deemed more violent or severe than others such those related to murder or terrorism etc.. Such laws exist at both state and federal level in order ensure individuals can have their day in court without fearing potential biasness regardless where they come from reside or stand socioeconomically – something which has become increasingly important throughout American legal system over past few decades especially so today given current climate around topics like race relations amongst others(AZleg gov).

Overall while exact details regarding why Judge Susan Brnovich ultimately granted Mr .Smith’s request remain confidential there is strong indication from her decision that her primary concern lies protecting his right towards equal justice before law despite nature severity charges leveled against him; thus reinforcing notion throughout country groups should receive same treatment regardless background believe system whether guilty innocent

Works Cited:
Azelg Gov., “Arizona Revised Statutes”, Azleg Gov., 2020 https://www​azleg​gov/arsDetail/?title=13 Accessed 2 June 2020
Courts Ca Gov., “Change Of Venue Rules”, Courts Ca Gov., 2017 http://www​courts​ca ​gov/9617htm Accessed 2 June 2020
Justia,, “Classification Of Felonies & Misdemeanors In Arizona “, Justia Law Criminal Law , 2018 https:/wwwjustialawcom/criminal/classification/​accessed 2 June 2020 Crime Museum,” Jurisdictions” Crimemuseum org , 2016 http://wwwcrimemuseumorg/crime-library/criminal-lawjurisdictions/​Accessed 2 June2020

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 WhatsApp Us Now