DIVISION II STATE OF TENNESSEE ) ) scl _ ) LE ) DocketNo. 112657 owl ERIC BOYD, ) ) Defendant. ) MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE ‘AND MOTION TO ADOPT LETALYIS COBBINS’ MOTION DM-90 & DM-142 Comes now the defendant, Bric Boyd, by and through undersigned counsel, pursuant to Rule 21 (a), and moves this Honorable Court for a change of venue from Knox County, Tennessee due to undue excitement against the defendant which is of such a nature and extent that a fair trial will not be possible, Alternatively, the Defendant requests that this Court issue an order for a special venire of jurors from another county pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-4-201. Defendant Eric Boyd also herein moves to adopt the motion and memoranda filed by Defendant Letalvis Cobbins in his request for change of venue dated September 19, 2008 (Cobbins—DM-90), as well as his renewed request dated July 23, 2009 (Cobbins—DM-142), and renewed request dated January 12, 2012. On January 07, 2007 a horrendous crime was committed. With the discovery of Christopher Newsom’s body, the citizens of Knox County began to consume the steady diet of media coverage that would be served, dutifully, for the next 12 years. They sat attentive to the sickening facts of the crime as the details emerged and were reported on. They followed the search, apprehension, trial, conviction and sentencing of the killers. Before the wounds to the heart of the community caused by the brutal murders of Channon and Christopher could heal the citizens of Knox County would have to endure retrials of two of the four murderers At each ugly stage of the proceedings, the media were present and ensured that every detail ‘was reported. On March 20, 2018 a new chapter was opened and like the trials thatproceeded it the local media has been present and communicative at each stage of the case. Each judge that has considered the issue of whether to grant a change of venue or in the alternative of change of venire has acknowledged the extensive media coverage this case has received. Fach judge, who was asked to consider the question, has also granted the change of venire, To date, none have granted the change of venue, We are asking the Court to grant that request, and in the alternative, grant a special venire from another county ‘Asa general rule a crime must be prosecuted in the county where the crime was committed. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 18(a). “Venue may be changed on motion of the defendant ‘if it appears to the court that, due to undue excitement against the defendant in the county where the offense was committed or any cause, a fair trial probably could not be had.” State xv. Davidson, 121 $.W.3d 600, 611 (Tenn, 2003) (citing Tenn, R. Crim. P. 21(@)). In lieu of granting a change of venue a trial court may select a special venire of jurors from another county. Tenn, Code Ann. § 20-4-201(2) Pretrial publicity alone does not warrant a change of venue. Davidson, 121 $.W.3d at 611. There are a number of factors that the Court must consider which include: (Nature, extent, and timing of pretrial publicity; (2) Nature of publicity as fair or inflammatory; (3) The particular content of the publicity; (4) The degree to which the publicity complained of has permeated the area from which the venire is drawn; (5) ‘The degree to which the publicity circulated outside the area from which the veniro is drawn; (6) The time elapsed from the release of the publicity until the trial; (7) The degree of care exercised in the selection of the jury; (8) The ease or difficulty in selecting the jury; (9) The veniremen’s familiarity with the publicity and its effect; (10) The defendant’s utilization of his peremptory challenges; (11) The defendant's utilization of challenges for cause; (12) The participation by police or by the prosecution in the release of publicity; (13) The severity of the offfense charged; (14) ‘The absence or presence of threats, demonstrations or other hostility against the defendant; (15) Size of the area from which the venire is drawn; (16) Affidavits,hearsay or opinion testimony of witnesses; and (17) Nature of the verdict returned by the trial jury. State v. Hoover, $94 S,W.3d 743, 746 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979). ‘Media coverage in this case has been extensive and intense. ‘There has been hostility, as well as, demonstrations against the defendant’s in this case. Prior to his indictment, there ‘was an online petition on Change. org for the defendant to be charged and convicted for the murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. There have been television documentaries, online blogs and social media commentaries, in addition (o traditional media coverage, concerning these cases. Coverage inevitably intensifies as hearing dates occur and as the trial date approaches. This case has drawn more “excitement” against the parties, witnesses and participants than any other case in modem memory, Mr, Boyd asks the Court to take judicial notice of the extensive media coverage of this case. The coverage has included broadcast, print and online coverage. Mr. Boyd also respectfully submits the affidavit of counsel which is attached as Exhibit A and fully incorporated herein by specific reference. WHEREFORE, Mr. Boyd prays that this Honorable Court to grant this motion due to the extensive and prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The Defendant submits that he will be unable to select a fair and impartial jury from Knox County nor will he be able to receive a fair trial and he requests that this Court consider altemative venues for the trial in this case. Respectfully submitted this the 6th day of June, 2019, Zoe Leg Lhd Clinton EB. Frazier BPR 24431 Attomey for Mr. Boyd P.O, Box 7181 Maryville, TN 37802 (865) 385-7333