The listed exception isn't really important, I just mentioned it to cover my argument and make it complete. My argument doesn't depend on it, but if I didn't mention it, someone could bring it up as a diversion, and imply its a weakness in my argument. I probably shouldn't have brought it up, because now I've created the distraction myself, but in any case here it is
"except in any case in any particular county or judicial district, upon motion by the defendant, and after a finding by the court that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had where the offense may be committed, the court shall direct the trial to a county or judicial district in which a fair and im-partial trial can be obtained."
As a general response, I'd say that if the reason for the stipulation that no trial should ever take place in any county other than the one in which the crime was committed no longer applied, then it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that the law should be changed, or the Constitution amended.
I would as well. But that wasn't the question I asked.
Absent such legislation or amendment, would you say that the active clause of the law is voided, or at least changed in an important way, by the mere fact of the stated justification in the law becoming obsolete, or being shown to have always been false? |
