Order on Motion to Relocate Trial — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 109)

Summary

Order on Motion to Relocate Trial, filed June 22, 2022 as Document 109, Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW, United States v. Nathan Reardon, District of Maine. It states that Defendant Nathan Reardon requested that the trial be relocated to Portland to avoid ostensible prejudice from Bangor-area media coverage, citing the convenience of the parties and the interest of justice in declining the request. It states that the judge is unconvinced the coverage has been so pervasive or sensational as to make a fair trial impossible, that jury selection is designed to ferret out prejudice, and that trial participants, attorneys, likely witnesses and the defendant hail from the Bangor area. The request is DENIED, signed /s/ Lance E. Walker, United States District Judge.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 109 Filed 06/22/22 Page 1 of 3                    PageID #: 535




                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                                   DISTRICT OF MAINE


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                   )
                                            )
       v.                                   )
                                            )
NATHAN REARDON,                             )               No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW
                                            )
              Defendant.                    )


                    ORDER ON MOTION TO RELOCATE TRIAL

       Defendant, Nathan Reardon, has requested that the trial in this case be relocated to

Portland to avoid ostensible prejudice to him resulting from Bangor-area media coverage

of his alleged misdeeds. See Def.’s Mot. (ECF No. 98). Taking into consideration the

convenience of the parties and the interest of justice, I decline Reardon’s request.

       A district court has the authority to relocate a trial within a judicial district, and need

not be guided by where the events giving rise to the case occurred. See United States v.

Cates, 485 F.2d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 1974). Intradistrict transfers to avoid prejudice are not

governed by the rules for changes of venue between judicial districts. See Fed. R. Crim. P.

21 advisory committee’s note to 1966 amendments. Rather, the decision falls within my

discretion to “set the place of trial . . . with due regard for the convenience of the defendant,

any victim, and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.” Fed. R. Crim. P.

18. This discretion naturally includes concerns for fairness and due process, including the

discretion to relocate a trial if media coverage has been “so dense that a defendant cannot



                                                1
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 109 Filed 06/22/22 Page 2 of 3                PageID #: 536




possibly receive an impartial trial.” U.S v. Quiles-Olivo, 684 F. 3d 177, 182 (1st Cir. 2012)

(discussing standard for motions to transfer between judicial districts).

       Relocating Reardon’s trial to Portland is unwarranted. Though Reardon has been

the subject of a fair piece of unflattering publicity among Bangor-area media outlets—

some of it coverage of his alleged crimes and some of it human interest stories relating to

other alleged misdeeds on his part—I am unconvinced that this coverage has been so

pervasive or sensational as to make a fair trial impossible. The jury selection process is

designed to ferret out such prejudice, and the First Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that

a “probing voir dire examination is the best way to ensure that jurors do not harbor biases

for or against the parties.” Sampson v. United States, 724 F.3d 150, 163–64 (1st Cir. 2013)

(cleaned up). As a related point, I fail to see how relocating to Portland would meaningfully

lessen the jury’s familiarity with Reardon’s alleged transgressions. Despite the “Two

Maines” theory, the Bangor and Portland media markets, though small and separated by

about one hundred miles, are not hermetically sealed thanks to the modern convenience of

the internet. This information fluidity causes an imprecise overlap between the geographic

areas from which jury pools are gathered for each of our federal courthouses. Residents of

Bowdoinham are as likely to know what’s happening in Bradford as are residents of

LaGrange to keep tabs on the happenings in Lisbon Falls.

       Finally, the trial participants, attorneys, any likely witnesses, and the defendant

himself all hail from the Bangor area, which militate strongly in favor of holding the trial

in Bangor.



                                              2
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 109 Filed 06/22/22 Page 3 of 3         PageID #: 537




Reardon’s request that his trial be relocated to Portland is DENIED.

      SO ORDERED.

      Dated this 22nd day of June, 2022.

                                          /s/ Lance E. Walker
                                         UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                            3


File and source

File

109.pdf

Size

118,874 bytes

SHA-256

97ab9f9fc688e91f3aeeb9ce1909fb73fef9ecb2eb8091a86701f2b961d59f6a

Our copy

109.pdf

Original

No public link identified.