STATE OF MINESOTA

COUNTY OF LYON
STATE OF MINESOTA,
Plaintif,
vs.
OLGA MARINA FRANCO DEL CI
aka ALIANISS NZ MORALES,
Defndant.
I DISTRICT COURT
FITH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
File No. 42-CR-08-220
ORDER
The above-entitled matter came befre this Cou on Defndant's Motion fr Change of
Venue. Defndat was represented by Mauel Guerrero, Attorey at Law, St. Paul, Minesota
and Tamara Caban-Rairez, Attorey at Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The State appeared
through Rick Maes, Lyon County Attorey. The Motion has been submitted on the record and
the written arguments of Counsel.
Based upon all the fles and records herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORERED:
1. Defndant's Motion fr Change of Venue is GRTED.
2. Venue in this matter shall be transfrred to Kandiyohi County, Minnesota.
3. The trial shall commence at 8:00 a.m. on July 28, 2008 at the Kandiyohi County
Courthouse, Willma, Minnesota.
Dated:
_, 2008
BY THE COUT:
OrP
David W. Peterson
Judge of District Cou
MEMORDUM
Defndat has been charged in the Amended Complaint with fur couts of Criminal
Vehicular Homicide, in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.21, Subd. 1(1), seventeen counts of
Criminal Vehicular Injury, in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.21, Subd. 1(1), one count of False
Name ad Date of Birth to a Peace Ofcer, in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.506, Subd. 2, one
count of Stop Sign Violation, in violation of Minn. Stat. 169.20, Subd. 3(a), and one count of
No Minnesota Driver's License, in violation of Minn. Stat. 171.02, Subd. 1. Defndant has
requested that the Court change venue.
Rule 24.03, Subd. 1 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:
"The case may be transferred to another county:
a. If the court is satisfed that a fir and impartial trial cannot be had in the county in
which the case is pending;
b. For the convenience of parties and witnesses;
c. I the interests of justice;
d. As provided by Rule 25.02 govering prejudicial publicity."
This Cou has "wide discretion" regarding a chage of venue. State v. Salas, 306 N.W.2d 832,
835 (Minn. 1981) (citng State v. Thompson, 123 N.W.2d 378, 380 (Minn. 1963) (per cuiam)).
"When it appeas likely that it is impossible to procure a fir trial befre an impartial jury in the
county in which the crime was committed, the venue ought to be changed to a couty in which
an impaial juy can be obtained." Thompson, 123 N.W.2d at 380. A impartial jury is one
"having no preconceived opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the accused." Id. at 381.
I. Publicity
a. News reports: television/radio/newspaper
Counsel fr both sides has thoroughly analyzed the relevant case law along with the
extensive record of media accounts. Clearly, the media coverage has been extensive and
statewide. Lyon County has had coverage in addition to the statewide coverage, through
newspaper and radio accounts. The Court's review of the coverage leads it to the conclusion that
the state and local coverage has been fir.
2
b. Blogs/posts/letters
These texts rage fom opinion to mixed fct ad opinion. While there may be
disagreement about the tone or content of these texts, they are part of the long tradition of
America's maketplace of ideas, envisioned by the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
Factual news reports ae not sufcient to grant a change of venue on the ground of
pretrial publicity; rather opinions or implications of defndant's guilt are required. Salas, 306
N.W.2d at 835 (upholding denial of venue chage). When the prejudicial publicity extends
throughout the entire state, a trial court is not required to chage venue. State v. Blom, 682
N.W.2d 578, 607-08 (Minn. 2004).
While these accounts clearly make juy selection more challenging in Lyon County, they
do not in and of themselves require a change of venue fr several reasons: (1) the news accounts
as noted have been fir and are state-wide in coverage; (2) most people are able to distinguish
between fctual news accounts and opinions presented in a letter to the editor or on a blog; (3)
blogs are accessible thoughout the entire state; (4) in this Court's experience with cases
involving pre-trial publicity, it has observed that numerous jurors, even afer venue has been
changed, have been exposed to news accounts of the case, and ca then set those aside and
decide the case based solely on the evidence.
However, the Court's analysis does not end here. The Court must review in tu the
other grouds of Rule 24.03, Subd. 1 as applied to this case.
II. Fair and impartial trial
The Rule provides that venue may be chaged "[i]fthe court is satisfed that a fir and
impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which.the case is pending."
3
At the very heart of our democracy lies the right to a fir ad impaial jury trial. U.S.
Const. amend. VI; Minn. Const. art. 1, 6. I is importat to remember that this is not a
deterination about the firess and impartiality of the Lyon County community. Lyon County
is a remarkable community that has thrived in the generally tough environment of rural
Minesota. Its people are good, had-working, ad fir-minded. For nearly 30 yeas, this Court
has observed in countless Lyon County jury trials the excellent work of intelligent, fir-minded
jurors fom Lyon County.
Fair and impartial means a juror must be objective. A impatial jury is one "having no
preconceived opinions as to the guilt or inocence of the accused." Thompson, 123 N.W.2d at
381. "Partiality [of a juror] may be established by showing a personal relationship with a party,
or attorey in the litigation[ .. . ]" State v. Reiners, 644 N.W.2d 118, 123 (Min. Ct. App. 2002),
af d, 664 N.W.2d 826 (Min. 2003). "Because [the right to a fir trial] lies at the heart of our
criminal justice system, courts respond with great sensitivity to allegations that personal
predisposition or outside infuence has impaired a juror's ability to render a dispassionate,
unbiased, ad objective verdict." State v. Evas, 352 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Min. Ct. App. 1984).
Objectivity requires that there be some distace between the juror and the matter to be decided.
With this in mind, we must examine the extraordinary fctual context of this case.
1. The allegations are very serious and involve a unusually large number of child
victims who sufered injury or death, virtually all fom Lyon County. The Complaint
lists fur children killed and 16 children injured.
2. I response, a large number of area law enfrcement, emergency, and medical
persom1el becae involved in this case.
4
3. Lyon County is a geographically compact, close-kit community with a population of
approximately 25,000. In general, the jury panel would consist of a much smaller
pool of Lyon County residents between 18 ad 70 years of age (residents over 70
have the right to opt out of jury service).
4. The site of this accident is along Minesota Highway 23, a major state highway
crossing Lyon County diagonally. As a practical matter, virtually every prospective
jury member taveling to the northeast could concei\ably pass by the scene of this
accident, perhaps on several occasions.
5. If the fmily and close fiends of those who were child victims and other child
passengers of the bus are added to the fmily and fiends of the law enfrcement ad
medical personnel involved in the case, it is clea that a substatial number of people
have a personal conection, and in many cases personal knowledge of this case.
Understandably, because of the scope of this tagedy involving children, the
commuity discusses this case in a attempt to grieve, console, and come to some
understanding of this event. This very understandable process results in numerous
conversations about this case within the community.
Given the magnitude of this event, the number of people involved, ad the close-knit
community of Lyon County, it is likely that a substantial portion of the jury pool has had person
to-person conversations about this case. The Court's experience in jury trials is that, while
media accounts can readily be set aside by prospective jurors, accouts heard fom fiends or
neighbors are not easily set aside.
Making it even more difcult to set aside any personal conversations about the case
prospective jurors may have had are: (1) the fct that this case involves death and injury to
5
children, which understandably stikes at the very hea of ay community, paticularly a close
knit one; (2) the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial means that this case will be tried in
less than seven months fom the event. This shortened time fame means that conversations that
occurred around the time of the accident are firly fesh in memory and multiple conversations
are likely still occurring. Moreover, theses ongoing conversations will typically revolve around
the very questions a jury will be asked to decide: what happened and who is responsible?
None of the several fctors cited in and of themselves would necessarily require a venue
chage. However, the cumulative efect of all the fctors noted above requires that venue be
changed.
Lyon County has experienced a major ad, fr it, unprecedented tragedy involving its
own children. Lyon County continues the long process of coming to ters with the dimensions
of this tagedy. I the end, it is simply too much to ask a community to grieve fr its children
and then a fw months later sit with dispassionate judgment on the very case giving rise to that
grief
III. Courthouse fcilit
The interests of justice require that the location selected be sufficiently distant fom Lyon
County to provide the detachent necessary, and yet close enough so that the many family ad
fiends interested can conveniently attend the trial. At approximately 52 miles fom
Cottonwood, the Kandiyohi Count courthouse is both fr enough away to provide the
detachment necessary and yet close enough fr a convenient day trip to attend the trial.
The interests of justice in a high-profle trial also require excellent couhouse secuity.
Understandably, very fw courthouses are designed to meet the specifc needs of a high-profle
6
'
I r
trial. Fortunately, the Kandiyohi County courthouse is an exceptional courthouse with a long-
standing state of the a securit, system ad prior experience with high-profle tials.
7
I
.