William Mitchell Hudson vs. State

William Mitchell Hudson vs. State

A motion to change venue is one of many motions that may be filed before trial in a criminal case. A change of venue motion seeks to have the trial held in a different location. The motion may be filed by either the prosecuting attorney or the defense attorney.

Using the Nexis Uni resource database through the Shapiro Library portal, locate a criminal court case involving a motion for a change of venue in your home state or another state of your choosing.

In your initial post, state who brought the motion for change of venue. Explain in detail the reasons why he or she wanted the venue changed and state whether or not the judge granted the change of venue.

In response to your peers, state whether you agree or disagree with the judges’ rulings regarding change of venue in the cases that the students have described. Defend your position.

The Justice Studies Guide from the module resources will help you get started with research by providing links to library resources specific to justice studies, including criminal justice.

To complete this assignment, review the Discussion Rubric document.

Peer 1 for reply

California has been home to a couple criminal cases in which more than one death is searching for justice. In 1990, Richard John Vieira from Stanislaus County was involved in the murder of 4 individuals. Vieira (21 years old at the time) , along with others from (what Vieira described as a cult) his group were found guilty on multiple counts. In Vieira’s case, he was found guilty of four murder counts as well as one count of conspiracy to commit murder; three of the murders he received a death sentence for in 2005-when the case finalized after all the court extensions and motions (Moreno, J).

The beginning of the investigation led to multiple leads in which Vieira was questioned and release; days later, he was again questioned in which he confessed enough to an arrest. Due to the amount of media coverage on the murders, Vieira’s defense requested for a change of venue-multiple times-citing rights gaurenteed in Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments for an unbiased jury. Every request was reviewed based on the precedent established in the State of California by People v. Williams in 1989 and was denied every time time (Moreno, J.). Despite the amount of appeals Vieira made before the final decision, he has continued to search for ways to have his case reopened in hopes for a different verdict with no success (People v. Vieira).

As of today, Vieira is currently serving death sentence and remain ineligible for parole. He was arrested April 2, 1992 and is currently 50 years old (CDCR).

People v. Vieira, 35 Cal. 4th 264, 106 P.3d 990, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 337, 2005 Cal. LEXIS 2488, 2005 Daily Journal DAR 2694, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Service 2021 (Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 7, 2005, Filed ). Retrieved from https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:4FN6-TKP0-0039-41VT-00000-00&context=1516831.

Moreno, J., Supreme Court of California, The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondant, v. Richard John VIEIRA, Defendant and Appellant. No. S026040. Decided: March 07, 2005. Retrieved from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1445606.html

CDCR Inmate Locator. Accessed February 13, 2019. Retrieved from: https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/Details.aspx?ID=H31000

6 hours ago

Peer 2 for reply

For my discussion I have chosen the case of Commonwealth (of Massachusetts) v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395. The defendant, Robin Hoose, was tried for two counts of murder. After the murder of the two victims, Hoose contacted a detective, whom he had a good rapport with due to the fact Hoose was a confidential informant. Hoose confessed his crime to the detective, and provided a location to the bodies.

Hoose filed a motion to suppress his statement, on the grounds he was never provided Miranda, and was not in the right state of mind at the time of his confession. The motion was properly denied by the judge, citing that Hoose was very well aware of his rights, due to his lengthy history with police. When his first motion failed, Hoose filed a motion for a change of venue. Hoose believed his case had gained too much public attention, and his case could not be tried fairly. The judge was willing to entertain this motion if it was discovered that it a juror was incapable of being fair in the trial. The Judge then allowed the defense to question each juror individually, also known as voir dire.

This ultimately led to the defense failing to show any prejudice by the jurors, and Hoose’s motion for a change of venue was again properly denied. In March of 2014 Hoose was convicted on two first degree murder charges.


Commonwealth v. Hoose, 467 Mass. 395, 5 N.E.3d 843, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 123, 2014 WL 903364 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts March 11, 2014, Decided). Retrieved on February 11, 2019 from https://advance-lexis-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:5BPT-7441-F04G-P002-00000-00&context=1516831.

Commonwealth v. Robin Anthony House. 467 Mass 395 (2014). Retrieved on February 12, 2019,

Attachments area

Solution Preview for William Mitchell Hudson vs. State

William Mitchell Hudson vs. StateAPA

566 Words