Opinion
Criminal Action No. 09-cr-00529-PAB.
December 3, 2010
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the United States' Motion to Hold Trial and Other Court Proceedings in Grand Junction, Colorado [Docket No. 51].
The three defendants in this case are charged with crimes related to their operation of Valley Mortgage, Inc., which did business as Valley Investments. One of the defendants, Phillip R. Lochmiller, Jr., entered a guilty plea on November 16, 2010. Another defendant, Shawnee N. Carver, has filed a notice of disposition. See Docket No. 272. The trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on February 28, 2011 and last for five weeks.
Rule 18 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that "[t]he court must set the place of trial within the district with due regard for the convenience of the defendant, any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice."
The majority of likely witnesses in this case are from the Grand Junction area, which is where the government has asked that this case be transferred. Defendant Philip R. Lochmiller, Sr. also lives in the Grand Junction area, as do most of the alleged victims in this case. Normally, such factors would weigh in favor of a transfer to the federal courthouse in Grand Junction. However, two factors relating to the administration of justice argue against such a transfer. First, the Wayne N. Aspinall Federal Building and Courthouse in Grand Junction is scheduled to undergo substantial renovations beginning in February 2011. This renovation project will take approximately 18 months. During this time, court proceedings, other than trials, will take place in a location other than the courtroom. Although the renovation project will not necessarily disable the courtroom, the renovations will impact the ability of the Court to conduct a lengthy trial without disruptions. The renovations will cause noise problems, which will likely affect the ability of a jury to hear witnesses and to focus on the trial proceedings. The renovations are also likely to generate dust, which is not conducive to the conduct of a trial. Moreover, the Court is concerned that access to courtroom may occasionally be affected.
The second factor weighing against a transfer of this case is that, by its very nature, the trial will involve the presentation of large numbers of documents to witnesses. The Superseding Indictment contains thirty-three counts. It alleges that defendants have committed securities fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The parties estimated that the discovery in this case consists of over 100 bankers' boxes of documents and thousands of pages of financial records. See Docket No. 52 at 1-2. The ability of a jury to understand a significant volume of financial documents is greatly enhanced by the attorneys' ability to display such documents to the jury while a witness is testifying about them. Whether the attorneys display these documents with electronic trial presentation software, through posters, or with an overhead projector, the size and layout of the courtroom in Grand Junction will compromise their ability to present these documents effectively. It is difficult to position a projection screen in the courtroom where it can be easily viewed by all jurors. The courtroom in Denver is larger, has more room to place posters, charts, or projection screens, and has monitors positioned between the juror seats to allow jurors to easily view documents displayed electronically or through the overhead projector.
Ultimately, considerations regarding the venue of this trial must focus on those who will decide it — the jurors. The jury will be better able to consider the evidence, and to do so free of construction-related distractions, if this trial occurs in Denver.
The Court, however, is mindful of the large number of interested persons who reside in the Grand Junction area and the fact that many of them would attend some or all of the trial if it takes place in Grand Junction. As a result, the Court will make arrangements to establish a closed circuit feed of the trial at the Wayne N. Aspinall Federal Building and Courthouse that spectators will be able to view.
Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that the government's Motion to Hold Trial and Other Court Proceedings in Grand Junction, Colorado [Docket No. 51] is denied.
DATED December 3, 2010.