In the following scenario, do you believe a change of venue is warranted to preserve the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial?
A defendant with multiple pending cases was previously found unfit after trial via a motion by his public defender, who did not allow the defendant input on the choice of evaluator.
Nearly a year later, the defendant moves to have that public defender removed. One day before the scheduled hearing on that motion, the public defender files a second motion for a fitness evaluation.
On the same day, the defendant files three pro se motions:
For judicial recusal (based on allegations of personal entanglements involving the judge's ex-wife and stepson)
For reassignment of counsel
To compel the release of case files from the public defender
The judge refuses to hear any motions and reassigns the recusal request to another judge, who had previously upheld unlawful detentions of the defendant beyond the 48-hour bond hearing requirement — and responded to the defendant’s challenge with “It’s funny you know that... but that’s not how it works.”
The only other judge in the county is the former state’s attorney who filed the current charges.
Do you believe these facts are sufficient to justify a change of venue outside the county?
Yes – The combination of bias, conflicts of interest, and procedural abuse clearly justifies it
Possibly – More evidence needed, but the pattern is concerning
No – These issues should be addressed within the existing venue
Unsure – Depends on further details
Constitution
A defendant with multiple pending cases was previously found unfit after trial via a motion by his public defender, who did not allow the defendant input on the choice of evaluator.
Nearly a year later, the defendant moves to have that public defender removed. One day before the scheduled hearing on that motion, the public defender files a second motion for a fitness evaluation.
On the same day, the defendant files three pro se motions:
For judicial recusal (based on allegations of personal entanglements involving the judge's ex-wife and stepson)
For reassignment of counsel
To compel the release of case files from the public defender
The judge refuses to hear any motions and reassigns the recusal request to another judge, who had previously upheld unlawful detentions of the defendant beyond the 48-hour bond hearing requirement — and responded to the defendant’s challenge with “It’s funny you know that... but that’s not how it works.”
The only other judge in the county is the former state’s attorney who filed the current charges.

Yes – The combination of bias, conflicts of interest, and procedural abuse clearly justifies it
Possibly – More evidence needed, but the pattern is concerning
No – These issues should be addressed within the existing venue
Unsure – Depends on further details
Constitution