Decisions regarding the location of a venue can be imperative in the outcome of a trial. Community attitude surveys are normally utilized at all points during the litigation process. This includes picking an appropriate area to use as the venue. For instance, a change of venue survey in Miami and a change of venue survey in Ft. Lauderdale can be based on the situation of the defendant. Defendants have the right to a fair trial from a jury that is fair and unbiased. However, they do not have a say in the location of the trial. If for any reason the location of the venue needs to be changed, in certain states and under certain circumstances, the defense attorney can request for a change in the venue. In other situations, the location cannot be changed and the more important decisions rely solely on the rules and constitutions implemented by the state.

A change of venue is typically requested when the defendants feel that they aren’t getting a fair trial. Defendants that request a change of venue survey in Miami or a change of venue survey in Ft. Lauderdale for example, have grounds to request a change of venue if they feel that they themselves and the situation surrounding the trial, are gaining too much negative publicity. Or if the location of the trial is not conducive to the case and the actual location of where the crime occurred. For example, if a crime was committed in Coral Springs, it seems a bit perplexing if the trial were to take place in Orlando. The crime committed and the location of the trial should at least be in close proximity to one another. Venue changes can also occur if there is a general bias that exists among the jury or judge, or if it’s cases regarding the death penalty, this could potentially do more harm than good. 

Venue changes can make or break a trial. A method that could prove to be beneficial in picking the best location, would be to give surveys to the defendant, the party representing the defendant, and the jurors. The survey could be structured in a way that asks specific questions about the venue. Such as: why or why not is the venue appropriate? If a change is necessary, why would it help with the outcome of the trial? How could this help reduces bias and promote impartiality? These are a few examples that could prove useful in solidifying the location and usage of the venue. The same or similar kinds of questions can be posed to the defendant and the team that represents him or her. Defendants are automatically entitled to a fair trial, and if sufficient information is provided to help the rest of the jurors and company in the courtroom, it could increase the chances of the defendant being more willing to comply. Even in cases where the defendant is guilty, if some of their requests are honored, it can potentially make it easier when seeking confessions and overall clarity with the case itself. These kinds of measures should be executed within reason though. While having a fair trial is important, it’s not in anyone’s best interest if the defendant or team of jurors is being pampered to in an excessive fashion. If they are made to believe that they can attain anything they want, the notion of fairness and impartiality will be questioned. 

Venues also need to be closely examined due to other factors like location. If a crime was committed in Ft. Lauderdale, but the trial is being held in Miami, a change of venue survey in Ft. Lauderdale to a change of venue survey in Miami would be conducive to the situation. Location can also be convenient for the jurors, as many them have day time jobs and other obligations that already take up their time. Not imposing on them to travel far, would be considerate, given how complicated jury duty is, to begin with. It’s also important to acknowledge that other forms of bias can arise due to other unforeseen circumstances. The judge presiding over the case in the area may have a bias towards the defendant in matters of race, religion, age, gender, etc. If this detected early on, a change in the venue is more than reasonable.

A change of venue can also be crucial if the safety of the defendant or jurors could potentially be compromised. When a trial is garnering too much publicity, the focus shifts more to the media outlets rather than on the trial itself. It’s probably not as debilitating in cases where it’s ordinary civilians, but high profile cases with celebrities is a totally different extreme. Being a celebrity means you’re revoked of your privacy the second you elevate into stardom. It makes matters worse when said celebrity is involved in a string of legal disputes, and when this goes to trial, all sorts of supporters, haters, and media outlets consume the person and their trial. Celebrities are already very conservative about their private lives, or at the very least they strive to be. An excessive amount of negative publicity will not work in their favor, so in an extreme scenario such as this, could cause grounds for a change of venue, effective immediately. Regardless of whether or not said individual deserves the negative press because of their past and current behaviors are irrelevant. The notion of a fair trial still stands, unless the circumstances call for more rigid measures to be put into effect. These are pressing matters because the individual may or may not face jail time based on the crimes that were committed. If it can be helped, controlling the environment that the trial is taking place in, will make the whole process flow by in a smooth, poised manner. No one intentionally wants to complicate the situations surrounding and leading up to the trial, it just happens to turn out this way due to the reality of unforeseen circumstances.