Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Busey v. Board of County Commissioners of Shawnee
Citations: 210 F.R.D. 736; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20956; 2002 WL 31422847Docket: No. 01-4083-JAR
Court: District Court, D. Kansas; October 27, 2002; Federal District Court
The Court denies Plaintiff Earl Busey’s motion to designate Kansas City, Kansas, as the trial location instead of Topeka, citing concerns over the fairness of the trial due to his connection with former Sheriff Dave Meneley. Busey claims that the evidence related to Meneley and the surrounding drug scandal, widely covered in local media, would bias the jury in Topeka. He argues that voir dire may expose the identities of undercover narcotics officers he worked with, further complicating fair trial considerations. Under Local Rule 40.2 and 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), the Court assesses the request based on factors relevant to venue changes, emphasizing that transfers between cities require compelling reasons. The presumption is in favor of keeping the trial in Topeka, as it is where the original action was filed. The Court finds that Busey has not demonstrated that Topeka is inconvenient for trial, noting that he failed to adequately address factors beyond the potential for a fair trial and that most parties, witnesses, and evidence are located in Topeka. The Court concludes that Busey has not sufficiently justified his request for a transfer, distinguishing his case from Meneley’s, which had more substantial publicity concerns. The plaintiff failed to establish that his involvement in the Meneley drug scandal was more significant than Meneley’s and did not prove that the scandal's past publicity would adversely affect the current jury. Jurors are sourced from over fifteen Kansas counties, minimizing the likelihood of bias related to the scandal. The court emphasized that the Constitution does not mandate jurors to be completely unaware of the case details, as long as they can remain impartial. A transfer of the trial to Kansas City would lead to inefficiencies and delays, increasing costs for all parties involved, whereas the inconvenience for the plaintiff in traveling to Topeka is minimal. Balancing these factors, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an intra-district transfer. Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff's request (Doc. 61) is denied, while the defendants' motion for removal under relevant statutes and rules was granted.