Indeed, some scholars argue that it would be unconstitutional for a court to change the venue of a criminal trial over the objections of the defendant. This is because the Sixth Amendment states that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

It is one thing for the defendant to waive his or her right to a trial in the "State and district" wherin an alleged crime occurred. Now, obviously, the issue of "impartial" jury comes into play, but in my experience, prosecutors generally do not try to argue in advance that the local jury will be impartial and then pick a different venue.

It has happened I believe. But its extrerely rare and considered somewhat controversial when it does.

I would hope that a prosecutor would ask for a change of venue if that prosecutor understood the racial climate and realized that the prospective jurors could be biased, for the most part. Of course, the prosecution knew that this trial would receive national attention, and by requesting a change of venue--even if it were denied--this would shine a national spotlight on the atmosphere in Sanford; perhaps the judge would have received enough pressure that the instructions to the jury might have been a little different and consequently this jury might have been able to convict, at least, on the manslaughter charge.

I may be way off base here, but I have not been schooled in the art of jury selection nor the role of the prosecution. But I sure can think of plenty of questions and plenty of suppositions now that the tragic verdict is in.