Order on Motion to Relocate Trial — United States v. Nathan Reardon, No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW (Dkt. 109, D. Me.)
Summary
U.S. District Judge Lance E. Walker of the District of Maine denies Nathan Reardon's request to move the trial from Bangor to Portland, in an order filed as Document 109 on 06/22/22 in No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW. Reardon had asked for relocation to avoid prejudice from Bangor-area media coverage of Reardon's alleged misdeeds (ECF No. 98). The court finds the coverage, though "a fair piece of unflattering publicity," not so pervasive or sensational as to make a fair trial impossible, and points to voir dire to ferret out prejudice. The order adds that the Bangor and Portland media markets, about one hundred miles apart, are not hermetically sealed thanks to the internet, and that the trial participants, attorneys, likely witnesses and the defendant all hail from the Bangor area.
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 #:
<pageID>
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 #:
<pageID>
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 #:
<pageID>
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-order-on-motion-to-relocate-trial.pdf
- Size
- 212,140 bytes
- SHA-256
- ccea9b725fa2c11efb7c6ce26308f6acc5eff1e4d056c6b21fd51dbc5c484e40
- Original
- No public link identified.