Abstract
This article analyzes the California Court of Appeals decision in Powell v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County that issued a writ of mandate on pretrial appeal directing the trial judge to order a defense motion for change of venue. The premise of the article is that the decision was inadequate in significant ways and concludes that the court of appeals improperly exercised its discretion. The venue in the "Rodney King" case properly belonged in Los Angeles County. Two broad lines of reasoning supporting this conclusion are offered. First, as discussed in Part II, the reasoning of Powell was wanting. Parts III and IV offer an "interest analysis" that gives a positive and principled reason for retaining venue in this case: the value of a local community to have important local decisions made according to its own norms and values.
Recommended Citation
Marvin Zalman and Maurisa Gates,
Rethinking Venue in Light of the Rodney King Case: An Interest Analysis,
41 Clev. St. L. Rev.
215
(1993)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol41/iss2/4