Professional Documents
Culture Documents
On June 9, 2010, defendant Ronald Slovacek filed his motion to transfer this case
intradistrict to the Wichita Falls Division pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
18, arguing that a “huge amount of negative publicity” regarding the prosecution of he
and his co-defendants has “saturated” the local jury pool and “created a substantial
potential for prejudice.” (Def.’s Mot. at 1.) However, Slovacek has failed to carry his
burden of demonstrating that the publicity surrounding this case has been so
inflammatory and prejudicial that he could not obtain a fair and impartial trial in the
Dallas Division. Slovacek’s motion to transfer this case to the Wichita Falls Division
should be denied.
FED. R. CRIM. PRO. 18 (2010). Besides the “convenience” and “prompt administration of
USA’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Transfer within Judicial District – Page 1
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1391 Filed 06/16/10 Page 2 of 6 PageID 9535
justice” factors set forth in the Rule, the Fifth Circuit has recognized that the potential
prejudice to the defendant from pretrial publicity may be considered by the court when
weighing the propriety of an intradistrict transfer. See United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d
981, 985 (5th Cir. 1990). However, such a transfer “is not required absent a strong
showing of prejudice” to the defendant if venue is not changed. Id. (citing United States
v. Dickie, 775 F.2d 607, 609 (5th Cir. 1985) and United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869,
876 (5th Cir. 1982)). To make “a strong showing of prejudice,” the defendant must
demonstrate that pretrial publicity has been extensive, inflammatory, and has resulted in
Notoriety of a case alone does not justify an intradistrict transfer. This Court need
not ensure that the jury panel be comprised of individuals who have no preconceived
opinions about the defendant, but individuals who have such opinions must be able to
“‘lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based upon the evidence
presented in court.’” United States v. Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 344 (5th Cir. 2002)
(quoting Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799-800 (1975)). Therefore, even if
inflammatory pretrial publicity has saturated the community to the extent that a
presumption of prejudice to the defendant has arisen, this presumption can be rebutted by
the government by demonstrating through voir dire that an impartial jury was actually
impaneled in the defendant’s case. United States v. Parker, 877 F.2d 327, 331 (5th Cir.
1989).
In this case, Slovacek has not made the “strong showing of prejudice” necessary to
USA’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Transfer within Judicial District – Page 2
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1391 Filed 06/16/10 Page 3 of 6 PageID 9536
transfer this matter to the Wichita Falls Division. While this matter has received
extensive media attention in the Dallas area since 2005, Slovacek has not demonstrated
that this publicity has been of an inflammatory nature, leading to pervasive community
prejudice against him. The vast majority of the media accounts – including the nearly
700 pages of newspaper articles and blog excerpts submitted by Slovacek as support for
his Motion (See Exs. 2 and 3 to Def.’s Mot.) – simply refer to information from the
Slovacek claims that “negative prejudicial media reports” of this case “are truly
extraordinary,” and singles out “blogs” as being “repleate with such prejudicial opinions
about the City Hall corruption case,” (Def.’s Mot. at 8-9) he does not point to any specific
articles or blog entries written about he or any of his co-defendants that were
inflammatory and so saturated the local community that it would virtually impossible to
obtain an impartial jury. Indeed, even the report by the Margulies Communications
Group submitted by Slovacek (Ex. 1 to Def.’s Mot.) focuses solely on the extensive
nature of the media coverage as inherently prejudicial to Slovacek, rather than offering
any specific, tangible examples of inflammatory publicity. As the Fifth Circuit has noted,
“[t]he presumption [of juror prejudice] is generally not applied to cases in which the news
accounts complained of are ‘straight news stories rather than invidious articles which
would tend to arouse ill will and vindictiveness.’” United States v. O’Keefe, 722 F.2d
1175, 1180 (5th Cir. 1983) (quoting Calley v. Callaway, 519 F.2d 184, 206 (5th Cir.
1975)). Even considering just the media accounts submitted by Slovacek, it is clear that
USA’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Transfer within Judicial District – Page 3
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1391 Filed 06/16/10 Page 4 of 6 PageID 9537
the media coverage of this matter has been overwhelmingly devoted to straight news
reporting, rather than inflammatory or “invidious” articles stirring up ill will against
Moreover, the transfer of this case to the Wichita Falls Division is extremely
unlikely to produce a jury venire completely ignorant of the facts of this case, as Slovacek
apparently seeks. For example, the newspaper articles and blog entries submitted as
evidence by Slovacek were available on the Dallas Morning News’ internet site, and any
resident of the Wichita Falls Division that did not read a physical copy of the newspaper
certainly could have accessed these articles on the paper’s website. While interest in this
case may be greatest in Dallas, there undoubtedly is interest in the proceedings in the
Wichita Falls Division, which sits only 150 miles from Dallas. See, e.g., United States v.
Patel, 2008 WL 5428044, at *7 (W.D. La. Dec. 24, 2008) (denying intradistrict transfer
and noting that “ubiquity of the internet” made it “beyond comprehension” to expect a
Finally, the remaining two factors set forth in Rule 18 – “convenience” and
he has waived his Speedy Trial Act rights (Def.’s Mot. at 4), so the “prompt
administration of justice” is irrelevant here. The “convenience” factor, on the other hand,
weighs in favor of keeping the case in the Dallas District, as the vast majority of the
witnesses live in the Dallas area, and a transfer to the Wichita Falls Division would lead
to longer travel time and possible overnight hotel stays for some witnesses.
USA’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Transfer within Judicial District – Page 4
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1391 Filed 06/16/10 Page 5 of 6 PageID 9538
In sum, because Slovacek has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that
inflammatory, prejudicial publicity has made it virtually impossible for him to obtain an
impartial jury, the United States requests that the Court deny Slovacek’s motion for
intradistrict transfer to the Wichita Falls Division. Alternatively, the government requests
that the Court defer ruling on this motion until the conclusion of voir dire, so that the
government may have an opportunity to demonstrate that an impartial jury was actually
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES T. JACKS
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
USA’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Transfer within Judicial District – Page 5
Case 3:07-cr-00289-M Document 1391 Filed 06/16/10 Page 6 of 6 PageID 9539
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 16, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the clerk of court for the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case
filing system sent a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the following attorney of record who
has consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic
USA’s Resp. to Def.’s Mot. for Transfer within Judicial District – Page 6