State of Maine v. Gregory Fuller

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET
WASHINGTON, ss. MACHIAS
DOCKET NO. CD-CR-22-20080

STATE OF MAINE

V. ORDER ON MOTION FOR CHANGE
OF VENUE

GREGORY FULLER,
Defendant

Defendant's matter is on the trial list for possible jury selection in September and
jury trial in October of this year. On 8 / 8 I 22 Defendant filed a Motion For Change of
Venue. For the reasons stated below the Motion For Change of Venue is denied:

Issue Presented:

1. Defendant, a person of color, is facing trial in Washington County, which is
predominately white. He argues that a fair and impartial jury of his peers cannot be
drawn from Washington County due to its racial composition, and thus is seeking a
change of venue.

2. Defendant is not entitled to a change of venue based on the demographics of
Washington County, alone. Defendant does not have a right to a jury of any particular
composition, including a jury that is partly or entirely composed of jurors of his own race.

3. Defendant is entitled to a jury selection process that: (1) does not systematically
exclude any distinctive group from the venire, and (2) adequately probes jurors' racial
biases.

4. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constih1tion guarantees that a
defendant in a criminal case has the right to a "trial, by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been committed." U.S. Const. amend. VI; see also
State v. Thomas, 2022 ME 27, <JI 27, 274 A.3d 356. The United States Supreme Court and the
Law Court have held that the jury must be a selected from a "fair cross section of the
community." Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 527 (1975); Thomas, 2022 ME 27, <J[ 27, 274
A.3d 356.

5. To establish a violation of a defendant's right to a jury drawn from a "fair cross
section of the community, the defendant has the burden to show:
11
(1) the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the
community; .
(2) the representation of this group in jury pools from which juries are
selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons
in the community; and
(3) this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in
the jury selection process.

Thomas, 2022 ME 27, <jJ: 28,274 A.3d 356 (citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357,364, (1979).

6. A defendant is also entitled to a jury selection process that adequately probes
jurors' racial biases. State v. Fleming1 2020 ME 1201 <JI 24, 239 A.3d 648 ("Given the lack of
any questions that directly addressed Fleming's concerns about the jurors' contact with
or opinions about people who are African American or Black, the voir dire process was
not 'sufficient to disclose facts that would reveal juror bias."' (quoting State v. Lowry, 2003
ME38, '1I 11,819 A.2d 331)).

7. However, a defendant is not entitled to a jury of "any particular composition."
Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538; Thornas, 2022 ME 27, <JI 27, 274 A.3d 356. In State v. Pritchett, 302
A.2d 101 (Me. 1973 ), the defendant, who was black, brought a motion for change of venue
on the grounds that it was impossible for a jury of his peers to be selected in
Androscoggin County, which was predominately white. The Law Court stated simply:
"This statement presupposes that the defendant is constitutionally entitled to be tried by
a jury composed partly if not entirely of members of his race. That is not the law." Id. at
103.

8. Defense counsel argues that a change of venue is in order because a fair and
impartial jury of Defendant's peers cannot be selected in Washington County.
Defendant's case is on the trial list, but the venire has not yet been summoned.

9. Defense counsel cites State v. Beckus, 229 A.2d 316 (Me. 1967), and State v.
Saucier1 2001 ME 107, <JI 15, 776 A.2d 621, in support of the motion. Beckus did not deal
with racial bias or demographics of the venire. Id. at 319. The only issue was pretrial
publicity. Id. The defendant was charged with murder of a State Trooper committed in a
small town in York County. Id. at 317. The facts were heavily publicized before trial, and
there were statewide fundraisers for the victim's family. Id. at 317, 319. The Law Court
nonetheless held that the trial court properly denied the motion to change venue for
failure to show actual prejudice. Id. at 320. This case is1 therefore, not on point.

10. Nor is Saucier on point. Saucier also dealt with pretrial prejudice. 2001 ME
107, <JI 14, 776 A.2d 621. Saucier stands for the proposition that a motion for change of
venue on grounds of pretrial publicity should be granted upon a showing of either
presumed prejudice or actual prejudice. Id.

11. Because no venire has been summoned, Defendant cannot yet show a violation
of his right to jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. See Thomas, 2022 ME
27, ci[ 28, 274 A.3d 356. Defendant is not entitled to a jury composed of members of his
own race, and he is not entitled to a change of venue 611 these grounds at this stage. See
Pritchett, 302 A.2d at 103; see also State v. Holland, 2009 ME 72, <JI 45, 976 A.2d 227.

2
12. Of course, the Court must ensure that the jury selection process does not
systematically exclude jurors of color. Random selection processes, as provided by Maine
statutory law, will usually suffice. Holland, 2009 ME 72, <JI 45, 976 A.2d 227. The Court
must also, pursuant to Fleming, engage in a thorough voir dire process on racial bias
issues to ensure the jurors who are ultimately are capable of being fair and impartial.

Conclusion:

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for change of venue is denied .

. J1J·1i
Date: 8/18/2022
BY J c'(/Jt//l,
~ - , I - - ' ~ . , _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Robert E. Mullen, Chief Justice
Maine Superior Court

3