Back in April of 2015, the court conducted a hearing on two motions which we had filed in February and March, respectively, which were a motion for a change of venue and a motion for sequestration.

The motion for a change of venue was presented to the judge, along with the results of a

poll that we had hired a company to conduct on potential jurors residing in Douglas County, Nebraska.

Now we believe that those poll results were unequivocal in demonstrating that far too many potential jurors were aware of our client

and what he had been accused of doing but far more compelling from the

defense's perspective at least was that a majority of the people polled had reached an opinion.

Garcia was either definitely or probably guilty.

Towards the end of April of 2015, Judge Doherty issued his rulings at both of those motions.

In reaching his decision, the judge cites both the relevant statute as well as the law,

which reads as follows, Nebraska revised statute 29-1301

provides that quote

all criminal cases shall be tried in the county where the offense was

committed unless it shall appear to the court by

affidavits that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had herein. The judge also cited case law which stated to secure a change of

venue based on pretrial publicity a defendant must show that the publicity has

made it impossible to secure a fair and impartial jury, which is cited as State v Dixon, which is a Nebraska case in 2011.

Now, in the practice of law, as I have told you many many times

Interpretation is everything and everything is interpreted

Laws once enacted become statutes, and those statutes once they begin to be applied in practice have to be fleshed out, which is done through the appellate process.

For example, the language up above from the

applicable statute states that all criminal cases shall be tried in the county

it was committed unless it can be shown by affidavit that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had

...