ROCKWALL COUNTY, Texas — The defense team for Eric Williams, a former Kaufman County justice of the peace indicted and currently awaiting trial for the capital murders of Kaufman County District Attorney (DA) Mike McLelland, his wife, Cynthia, and Kaufman County Assistant DA Mark Hasse, has filed another motion for change of venue and a motion for a restrictive and protective order regulating media coverage.
ROCKWALL COUNTY, Texas — The defense team for Eric Williams, a former Kaufman County justice of the peace indicted and currently awaiting trial for the capital murders of Kaufman County District Attorney (DA) Mike McLelland, his wife, Cynthia, and Kaufman County Assistant DA Mark Hasse, has filed another motion for change of venue and a motion for a restrictive and protective order regulating media coverage.
The motion for change of venue is the second such request by Williams’ defense team. The trial has already been moved from Kaufman County to an adjoining county, Rockwall County, after the defense argued Williams would not receive a fair trial in Kaufman County where the killings were alleged to happen.
In the latest motion for change of venue, Defense Attorney Matthew Seymour requests the change “because substantially the same or similar conditions exist in Rockwall County as existed in Kaufman County at the time of the transfer and continuing through filing of this pleading due to pervasive media exposure of the potential jury pool and public-at-large in Rockwall County.”
Seymour also states evidence recovered in Lake Tawakoni is of close proximity to the current courthouse, “approximately 35 miles east of Rockwall County at the border of Hunt County.”
Seymour is seeking the trial be moved to a county beyond an adjoining district.
Again citing extensive media coverage, Seymour states, “The extent of said publicity has been inflammatory and unfair and created such hostility toward the defendant and prejudiced the opinions of members of the community to such a degree that it is unlikely a jury could be selected which could render a verdict solely on the evidence presented at trial.”
Seymour is also seeking a restrictive and protective order regulating news accounts, comments, and editorials concerning certain circumstance of Williams’ case. “The pretrial publicity in his case has risen to the level that it poses imminent and irreparable harm to a fair and impartial trial,” stated Seymour.
The motion further alleges media coverage could potentially “instruct jurors on their in-court responses or could have a chilling effect upon prospective jurors sharing their true thoughts and feelings in the courtroom.” Mentioned were Twitter accounts of members of the media live tweeting juror responses from the courtroom.
Seymour’s motion seeks to bar pretrial publication of any witness accounts which identify the accused [Williams] as having committed any alleged crime; bars publication of prospective witness information until they have testified at trial; bars publication of excused or prospective jurors; bars publication of juror responses during jury selection or speculation as to what juror answers might be acceptable or not during selection; limits news comments and reporting to issues and proceedings which have been presented to the jury by means of introduction through the court proceedings; bars courtroom broadcasting or television equipment in the courtroom during the trial; bars courtroom audio and video recording from inside the courtroom while in recess; bars photography in the courtroom; bars making of sketches in the courtroom; arranges certain media accommodations inside the courtroom; and bars the press from handling or photographing exhibits during the course of the trial.
A hearing date for the motions has not yet been set.
