Here's one I'd like Oli and/or the other lawyers here to comment on:

Earlier I posted about a big murder trial in my hometown. The defendant's lawyers quit abruptly after an e-mail they received indicating that the victim was murdered by a gang turned out to be a plant by the defendant's daughter, at his instruction. The judge declared a mistrial, and the defendant was later reindicted.

The local paper ran an article quoting the dismissed jurors' opinions of the aborted trial. Most of them thought the defendant was guilty according to what they heard, but said they probably would have voted to acquit because the prosecution failed to provide convincing evidence of guilt (i.e., no murder weapon, no DNA or blood matching the defendant under the victim's nails or in her home, clumsy forensic work, etc.).

My question: I know it's very difficult for a defendant to get a change of venue based on "prejudicial" accounts in news media, editorials, blogs, letters to editor, etc. But this is a case in which the actual jurors who sat through nearly half the trial, voiced their informed opinions in the local paper. I'd think that prospective jurors in a new trial would give thos opinions greater weight. Do you think the defense would have a better case for change of venue before the new trial starts?