O’NEILL & COANT, P.C.
30 West Chestnut Avenue
Vineland, NJ 08362
Telephone: (856) 692-2400

Attorneys for Defendant
                                    :   SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                    :   LAW DIVISION/CRIMINAL PART
            vs.                     :   Indictment No. 07-02-165
                                    :   Criminal Action
ROBERT VANAMAN,                     :
                  Defendant.        :


                                                Charles I. Coant, Esquire
                                                Joseph D. O’Neill, Esquire
                                                O’Neill & Coant, PC
                                                30 West Chestnut Avenue
                                                Vineland, NJ 08360

                                                Attorneys for Defendant
                                            TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... ii

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................ 1

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................ 12



   POINT TWO: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE BEHIND VENUE .............................13

   POINT THREE: THE SIX NELSON/KOEDATICH FACTORS ...................................14


CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................38

                                            TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, a Brief History of the Criminal Jury
in the United States, 61 University of Chicago Law Review, 867, 874 (1994)............14

Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)..............................................................17

Commonwealth v. Casper, 374 A2d 737 (Pa. 1977).................................................22

Commonwealth v. Cohen, 413 A2d 1066 (Pa. 1980)................................................22

Criminal Justice Standards: Trial by Jury, ABA Crim. Just. Sec.
Standard 15:1.4 (3d. ed.).......................................................................................15

Forsythe v. State, 12 Ohio Misc. 99, 230 N.E. 2d 681 (1967)..................................35

N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a (1) or (2)....................................................................................25

N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1)................................................................................................25

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1....................................................................................................25

People v. Lucas, 131 Misc. 664, 228 NYS 31 (1928)................................................22

R. 3:14-2...............................................................................................................14

Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) ..............................................................16

Russell v. State, 146 S.W. 3d 705 (Tex. App. (2004)................................................37

State v. Collins, 2 N.J. 406 (1949)...........................................................................14

State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986)......................................................................25

State v. Harris 156 N.J. 122 (1997)........................................................................15, 16

State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225(1988)...................................................................15–34

State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417 (2002)...........................................................................15-34

State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39 (1983)........................................................................15

State v. Williams, (II) 113 N.J. 393 (1988) ...............................................................35

United States v. Ebens, 654 F. Supp. 144 (1987).....................................................22

United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 276 (1944)................................................14

Vernon’s Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1 ¶10; Vernon’s Ann. Texas,
C.C.T. Art. 31.03....................................................................................................37

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary .........................................................18


      Defendant Robert Vanaman submits the following Statement of Procedural Histo-

ry, Statement of Facts and Argument in support of our Motion to Change Venue or, in

the alternative, to convene a special jury panel to investigate whether extraordinary pre-

trial publicity has prejudiced the jury pool.

                                                STATEMENT OF FACTS

      The arrest and subsequent indictment of Millville Police Sargent Robert E.

Vanaman has generated explosive print and televised media attention throughout Cum-

berland County. With respect to the print media, there are three prominent newspa-

pers, namely The Press of Atlantic City , The Daily Journal, and The Bridgeton Evening

News. NBC affiliate Channel 40 News has covered the murder case at length. Together,

the print and televised media reach a circulation/viewer population in excess of 153,500


      Pertaining to The Press of Atlantic City newspaper articles, there have been thirty-

five (35) articles published by South Jersey Publishing Company, trading as The Press of

Atlantic City, with respect to this case. The circulation of this newspaper, according to

its advertisers, is estimated at 10,000 within Cumberland County and substantially

more in Atlantic County. The articles are attached in chronological order in Exhibit A.

They are from The Press of Atlantic City archives and produced in their entirety. In the

back of each article, moreover, are exact laser copy reproductions of the actual articles,

most of which appeared on the front page of the newspaper with color photographs. The

dates and titles of these articles are as follows:

      May 12, 2006                     Millville Cop Shoots, Kills Wife, Police Say

May 13, 2006              No Charge Filed in Millville Slaying

May 14, 2006              Family, Friends, Remember Slain Millville Woman

May 15, 2006              Vanaman Burial Set for Wednesday in Millville

May 15, 2006              Obituary

May 16, 2006              Cop Accused of Killing Wife is Released from Hospi-

May 18, 2006               Shooting Victim Buried in Millville/Survivors Remem-
                    ber Vanaman’s Smile, Spirit. This was a front-page article
                    showing the mourners in Millville of the “shooting victim.”
                    It also shows the pall bearers carrying the casket contain-
                    ing Barbara Vanaman.

June 7, 2006              Vanaman to allow DNA Sampling

June 8, 2006              A corrections article in which South Jersey Publish-
                    ing Company states that their previous article was incor-
                    rect when they made mention that Robert Vanaman had
                    been charged with a crime.

August 5, 2006            Evidence From Vanaman Slaying Needs More Tests

October 23, 2006          Cases Involving Police Moving Slow, Critics Say

November 22, 2006   Millville Cop Held in Killing/Robert Vanaman Charged in
                    May Slaying of His Wife. This article shows a picture of
                    Robert Vanaman not smiling, wearing his Millville SWAT
                    Uniform in black, and a smiling picture of a well-coiffed
                    Barbara Vanaman.

November 23, 2006   Millville’s Vanaman Pleads Not Guilty

November 26, 2006   Regional Week in Review, citing Defendant Vanaman’s ar-
                    rest after a six-month investigation in which the Cumber-
                    land County Prosecutor Ron Casella questions the
                    Vanaman self-defense theory.

December 2, 2006    Judge Reduces Bail for Vanaman. This article appeared
                    on the front page of that edition and shows a photograph

                    of Robert Vanaman wearing his jail-issued orange
                    jumpsuit. He is unshaven because First Assistant Prose-
                    cutor Kenneth A. Pagliughi encouraged the Warden of the
                    jail to place Robert Vanaman on suicide watch. Any
                    reader looking at this picture would associate Robert
                    Vanaman with being a prisoner and looking gruff.

December 3, 2006    Regional Week in Review, discussing Robert Vanaman’s
                    bail of $500,000 cash or bond.

December 5, 2006    Vanaman’s Family Pays $50,000 to Free Him. This article
                    also includes a photograph of Robert Vanaman, again in
                    his orange jumpsuit and unshaven.

December 10, 2006   Regional Week in Review, discussing the $500,000 bail.

December 20, 2006   Attorneys Fail to Discredit Vanaman Murder Case. This
                    headline, which pertains to the probable cause hearing,
                    would tend to imply to that the murder case against Rob-
                    ert Vanaman is strong, and there is no mention of the fact
                    that almost nobody wins a probable cause hearing, which
                    is misleading to the news readers. As any criminal de-
                    fense attorney knows, the purpose of a probable cause
                    hearing is multi-fold and has very little to do with dis-
                    crediting a murder case.

December 29, 2006   2006, The Year in Review, Top Regional Stories, identifying
                    Robert Vanaman as being charged with murder on No-
                    vember 21, 2006 as one of the top regional stories in the
                    year 2006.

January 11, 2007    Accused Cop Keeps Custody of His Children. This article
                    references similarities between this case and the infa-
                    mous case of Scott McCarter, who was on trial for sexual-
                    ly assaulting his stepdaughter, when in the midst of the
                    trial he went home and fatally shot his wife and two chil-
                    dren and thereafter killed himself. This article again has
                    a color photograph of an unshaven Robert Vanaman
                    wearing his jail-issued orange jumpsuit.

January 22, 2007    Homicide Increase Shakes Up Millville. This article centers
                    on what Millville residents are talking about at a local
                    well-known eatery in Cumberland County, namely, Jim’s

                Lunch, and it states, “. . . Talk flows across the counter
                loudly and easily as customers discuss the topics of the
                town over plates of hamburgers and chipped beef. But for
                more times than they’d like, customers here have found
                themselves talking about an unsavory topic: murder.
                Last year, nine people died in homicides here. Four of
                them were children. These crimes were horrific and trag-
                ic, and in many cases the reasons for them mysterious. It
                might be said that the crimes were unspeakable, but that
                won’t be true. The truth is, people can’t stop talking
                about them. ‘The big talk was about that officer,’ Tabitha
                Shrout, one of Jim’s waitresses, said during a recent
                shift. She was referring to local police sergeant Robert
                Vanaman, accused of fatally shooting his wife.”

March 1, 2007          Millville Officer Indicted in Wife’s Death/Charges
                Against Sergeant Robert Vanaman Include Murder, Re-
                straint, Witness Tampering. Again, this front-page article
                includes a menacing color photograph of an unshaven
                Robert Vanaman in his jail-issued orange jumpsuit.
                There is also a photograph of an exuberant, smiling, de-
                mure Barbara Vanaman.

March 4, 2007        Regional Week in Review, discussing the Robert
                Vanaman indictment, which happened the previous

April 3, 2007         Millville Police Officer Pleads Not Guilty to Slaying
                Wife/Sergeant Robert E. Vanaman Faces Murder Charge.
                Again, a front-page article with a photograph of Robert
                Vanaman talking to attorney Charles I. Coant during the

May 8, 2007          Regional Week in Review, discussing the Robert
                Vanaman arraignment.

May 11, 2007          Memorial in the Obituary section of the newspaper,
                which reads, “In Loving Memory of Barbara Getz
                Vanaman, who passed away May 11, 2006.” It has a
                photograph of Barbara Vanaman, which is the same pho-
                tograph that appears in the “Run for Barb” poster. It is a
                photograph of her smiling, demure image and reads, “It’s
                been a year since you were taken. Yet every day in some

                                 small way memories of you come our way. Though ab-
                                 sent, you are always near. Still missed, loved and always
                                 dear. Love, Mom, Dad and the rest of the family.”

      September 29, 2007         Attorneys Argue Over Evidence in Vanaman Murder Trial.
                                 This article now has a photograph of Robert Vanaman
                                 wearing a suit.

      November 27, 2007          Prosecutor Wants to Block Officer’s Claim of Self Defense in
                                 Wife’s Death

      November 27, 2007          Judge to Rule on Vanaman Defense

      November 30, 2007          Judge Orders Vanaman Lawyers to Produce Self-Defense

      December 2, 2007           Regional Week in Review, discussing the Vanaman case.

      December 24, 2007          Twelve Months Later/Vanaman Murder Case Awaits Evi-
                                 dence of Self Defense

      December 31, 2007          2007: The Year in Review/The Top Regional and State Sto-
                                 ries. As in the calendar year 2006, the murder case of
                                 Robert Vanaman is named as a top story for the year.

      April 1, 2008                    Vanaman Wants Trial Moved

      Another newspaper distributed throughout Cumberland County is The Daily Jour-

nal, whose circulation averages 21,500.     Articles from this newspaper are attached and

paginated in chronological order as Exhibit B. As with the articles from The Press of

Atlantic City, many of these have been retrieved from archives and produced in their

entirety. In the back of each article, moreover, are exact laser copy reproductions of the

articles, most of which appeared on the front page of the newspaper with color photo-

graphs. Regrettable, the archives of the Daily Journal only go back one calender year,

so we only have available twenty-five (25)of the published articles. The dates and titles of

these articles are as follows:

May 12, 2006         Prosecutor: Officer Kills Wife

May 13, 2006         Tragic Ending, Few Answers. This front-page article
               includes a photograph of a smiling Barbara Vanaman and
               one of Robert Vanaman in his uniform, looking down-

May 16, 2006         Long Investigation Ahead as Officer Leaves Hospital.
               This was a front-page headline.

May 19, 2006         Attorney Says Sergeant Vanaman Loved His Wife

May 24, 2006         Vanaman Scrutiny Thorough

May 26, 2006          Reader Views Questioning Why City Officer Wasn’t
               Charged.                              In this piece, which
               appeared in the Opinion section, a reader’s view was
               printed as follows: “Don’t get me wrong. I am not out to
               bash every man and woman who wears a uniform. I have
               interacted with police officers, and some are very kind
               and helpful and go out of their way to provide assistance.
               My problem is with Millville Police Sergeant Robert
               Vanaman. I don’t understand how an officer with fifteen
               years’ experience is not able to take away a pointed object
               from a suspect. To become an officer, you go through a
               lot of training, which includes how to subdue a suspect
               who is either smaller or bigger than the officer. So my
               question is, why wasn’t Sergeant Vanaman able to sub-
               due his wife and remove any object that was supposed to
               have been in her hand? Couldn’t shooting her be consid-
               ered excessive force? Sergeant Vanaman was allowed to
               go home, without any charges being pressed. Has anyone
               in the police department heard of domestic violence? By
               sending him back home, the police are telling men every-
               where that they are allowed to shoot and kill their wives
               and probably will be allowed to go home to their kid and
               family and act like nothing ever happened. Just weeks
               ago another man was charged with killing a Port Norris
               woman in his apartment and he turned himself into the
               police and told them what had happened through his in-
               terpreter. He was promptly arrested and has been in jail
               ever since. Why is he still in jail and unable to go home
               and act like nothing happened? That’s right, I forgot, he

                    doesn’t wear a uniform with a badge. – Shiriverna Lind-
                    say, Vineland.”

June 29, 2006             Prosecutor Has Few Answers on Vanaman Case.
                    Again, the photograph of Barbara Vanaman smiling, look-
                    ing demure, appears in this article, along with a color
                    photograph of Robert Vanaman, looking down, as if he
                    has something to hide.
November 23, 2006   Cop Pleads Not Guilty. This front-page article included a
                    4-1/2" x 6-1/2 photograph of an unshaven Robert
                    Vanaman wearing handcuffs attached to a waistband re-

December 1, 2006    Vanaman Could Get Bail Reduced.

December 2, 2006    Vanaman Gets Bail Reduced. In this article, a photograph
                    of Robert Vanaman depicts him in a dark jumpsuit issued
                    by the Salem County Jail.

December 2, 2006    Reader Views – Barbara Wasn’t Able to Celebrate Thanks-
                    giving. “Well, well, well. Officer Vanaman, or should I say
                    Inmate Vanaman. It has been six months since you al-
                    legedly killed your wife. I never thought I would see the
                    day when justice would come to you, but it has and I am
                    sure that all domestic violence victims and survivors are
                    jumping for joy. I know that I am! How is it in jail? I
                    saw the picture of you in your finely pressed blue uniform
                    and now you have a wrinkled orange jumpsuit. You also
                    need a haircut. Wow, what a difference a little dry clean-
                    ing and freedom make. I can’t believe that during you
                    time in front of the judge all you could muster up was a
                    little wimpy “yes.” What happened to that loud resound-
                    ing voice that you used to use when you were stopping
                    suspects on the streets? Why did your daddy give you
                    two packs of cigarettes? Is that for your protection in
                    jail? I thought you could not smoke in jail? You have a
                    great lawyer (Joseph O’Neill) but I don’t think he under-
                    stands domestic violence or death. Your lawyer stated,
                    ‘This is no way to celebrate Thanksgiving.’ Mr. O’Neill
                    and Mr. Vanaman, what about Barbara Vanaman? Don’t
                    you think that she would have loved to cook a nice home
                    cooked meal with her children and family? Well, because
                    Inmate Vanaman allegedly decided that he ‘needed to pro-

                    tect himself’ from his much smaller wife, she will no long-
                    er be able to cook another meal, see her children grow up
                    and be a part of their many firsts in life.         Inmate
                    Vanaman, I can only hope that a guard will allow you to
                    read this letter just so you can realize what you are ac-
                    cused of doing. I don’t want you sentenced to death.
                    That would be just too easy. If you’re convicted, I want
                    you to have life without a chance for parole. I want you
                    to be in the population with other inmates who realize
                    you were a policeman. Trust me, you are going to need
                    more than two packs of cigarettes to keep yourself alive.
                    – Shiriverna Lindsay, Vineland.”

December 5, 2006    Vanaman Makes Bail; Home with Kids. This headline arti-
                    cle appeared with a photograph of Robert Vanaman in his
                    dark-colored jumpsuit issued by Salem County Jail.

December 12, 2006   No Gag Order In Cop’s Case. This was another front-page

December 20, 2006   Vanaman’s Defense Disputed. Although this front-page
                    article appeared almost a month after Robert Vanaman
                    was released from jail, the editors of this newspaper de-
                    cided circulation would increase by continuing to print
                    images of Robert Vanaman wearing his jail-issued orange

January 5, 2007           Vanaman Defense Suffers Early Loss. This headline
                    again shows a photograph of an unshaven Robert
                    Vanaman wearing an orange jumpsuit and as Ms. Lind-
                    say points out, he is in bad need of a haircut, making him
                    appear even more guilty.

January 10, 2007    DYFS Calls Vanaman to Court.

January 11, 2007    Judge: Vanaman to Keep Custody of Kids. A front-page

May 11, 2007              One Year Later, Slain Wife Remembered, Questions
                    Remain in Vanaman Case. This two-page article again has
                    the photograph of Robert Vanaman still wearing a
                    jumpsuit, now a half year after his release from jail.
                    There is also a 6" x 4-1/2" photograph showing the tomb-

                             stone of Barbara Vanaman at the Greenwood Cemetery in
                             Millville where she was buried. It also shows a picture of
                             Karin Shaffer, the mother of Barbara Vanaman, with one
                             of her flyers. It is another poster with the same photo-
                             graph of Barbara Vanaman, smiling and looking demure.
                             This photograph also appears on Page 2 of this article.

     May 11, 2007                   A memorial announcement appeared stating, In
                             Loving Memory of Barbara Getz Vanaman, Who Passed
                             Away One Year Ago Today, May 11, 2006. It’s been a year
                             since you were taken, but yet our thoughts are ever with
                             you. Though you have passed away and those who loved
                             you dearly are thinking of you today and every day, you
                             will be missed forever. Love, Mom, Dad and the Rest of the

     September 29, 2007      Cop’s Trial Will Involve Gun Expert. Another front-page ar-

     November 29, 2007       Bridgeton:     Judge Allows Self-Defense Strategy in
                             Vanaman Trial. This article includes a number of blogs,
                             presumably written by readers of this newspaper, all of
                             whom have made up their minds already with respect to
                             the guilt of Robert Vanaman, presumably by reading the-
                             se newspaper articles.

     November 30, 2007       Judge Rules Vanaman May Claim Self Defense. This arti-
                             cle also has the blogs, all of which arrive at the conclu-
                             sion that Robert Vanaman is guilty as charged.

     December 3, 2007        Vanaman Trial Date in Distance

     December 31, 2007       2007: Year In Review. This item states, “On April 2 Mill-
                             ville Police Sergeant pleads not guilty.”

     April 1, 2008                 Vanaman Defense Seeks Unusual Strategy. There
                             were seven pages of blogs following this article, indicating
                             that all of the bloggers have prejudged this case and
                             would find Robert Vanaman guilty.

      The final newspaper circulated throughout Cumberland County is The Bridgeton

Evening News, which simultaneously appears in Millville as the Millville Evening News

(and Salem of the Salem Sunbeam). Circulation of the Bridgeton Evening News is 10,000

and Millville Evening News is 12,0000, we have been told by the advertising section.

There are twenty one articles with similar Headlines and photographs from this newspa-

per attached in Exhibit C. The dates and titles of the articles are as follows:

      May 12, 2006                    Sergeant Stabbed, Stable

      May 13, 2006                    Probe Into Officer’s Stabbing Continues

      May 16, 2006                    Memorial Service for Barbara

      May 17, 2006                    Barbara Vanaman Mourned

      May 18, 2006                    Barbara Vanaman Laid to Rest

      August 5, 2006                  Prosecutor ‘Perplexed’ With Lab Results

      November 22, 2006        Cop Charged With Murder

      November 23, 2006        Vanaman Arraignment Draws Huge Media

      December 2, 2006         Bail Reduced for Cop Charged in Wife’s Death

      December 5, 2006         Vanaman is Let Out on Bail

      December 19, 2006        Probable Cause Hearing for Vanaman

      December 20, 2006        Going to Trial

      January 5, 2007                 Vanaman 911 Call Stands

      January 11, 2007         TV Show Wants to Cover Vanaman

      January 12, 2007         Vanaman Keeps Custody of Children

      March 1, 2007                   Vanaman, Pompper Indicted

      April 3, 2007                   Vanaman Turns Down Deal

      November 28, 2007        Can Vanaman Plead Self-Defense?

      November 30, 2007        Judge Rules for Vanaman

      February 26, 2008        Vanaman Trial May Start by Summer

      April 3, 2008                  Vanaman’s Lawyer Asks Trial Moved Elsewhere

      Finally, with respect to the television media, NBC affiliate Channel 40 News has

televised eight stories on the murder case, each of which is still available for viewing on

the interactive website of the NBC local news affiliate. In the advertising section of the

website, the television studio claims that 47 percent of adults watch their local news,

with estimated viewers in excess of 100,000 for southern New Jersey. See NBC Channel

40 News information in Exhibit D.

      In addition to print and televised media cited above, the friends and family of Bar-

bara Vanaman have done a great deal to prejudice Robert Vanaman. They have dissemi-

nated thousands of posters and pamphlets, copies of which are attached as Exhibit E.

They read as follows:

                              5K Run/Walk * 1 Mi Fun Walk
                                      Run for Barb
                                      May 11, 2008
                        Raising Awareness of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

                                     Barb’s Story
            Barb Vanaman’s life came to a tragic end when she had just be-
            gun to blossom. We have chosen Mother’s Day to run this
            event because Barb’s role as a mother was the source of her
            greatest joy. Finding and creating happiness for her loved ones
            is what she did best. Always anxious to help those in need,
            she was both selfless and tireless in her efforts to help others
            solve their problems. She had the rare ability to find the good
            in the bleakest of circumstances. Born in Pennsylvania, but liv-
            ing in South Jersey, Barb was an avid athlete who competed in
            more than 75 races. She worked at the Creative Achievement
            Center and completed her BS degree at age 35, having earned it
            at Cumberland County Community College. A beautiful woman
            with red hair and green eyes, she had a smile that could soften
            granite and is prominent in our memories. Now, all of us who

            loved her join together to stop the cycle of abuse that culmi-
            nates in so many fatalities. Thank you for joining us in our ef-
                   Online registration is available at: www. lmsports.com.
                         Cumberland County Community College
                              Vineland, NJ 08362 9:00 a.m.

It cannot be ignored that this event, Mother’s Day, May 11, 2008 takes place on the

exact two-year anniversary of the May 11, 2006 incident. This event is clearly designed

to poison the jury pool by coinciding with our next status conference date, May 16,

2008, when it is contemplated that we will schedule a trial date.


      Robert Vanaman was indicted by a Cumberland County grand jury on February

28, 2007 on the following six counts: criminal restraint, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:13-

2a, a third-degree crime; murder, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a (1) or (2), a first-

degree crime; possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, in violation of N.J.S.A.

2C:39-4a, a second-degree crime; hinder apprehension or prosecution, in violation of

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-3b, a third-degree crime; tampering with physical evidence, in violation of

N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1), a fourth-degree crime; and obstructing administration of law or oth-

er governmental function, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1, a fourth-degree crime. See

the indictment, attached as Exhibit F.



      In thinking about the following argument to change venue, Your Honor must con-

sider how to weigh two competing principles. On the one hand, we have the fundamen-

tal Constitutional Sixth Amendment Due Process right of a defendant, such as Sergeant

Robert Vanaman, to have a fair and impartial jury decide his case. On the other hand,

we have the inconvenience of traveling to another venue, such as Woodbury, Gloucester

County, which is essentially a 40-minute drive from Bridgeton, Cumberland County.

     If the real goal of our jury system is to protect our most fundamental rights to a fair

trial, then surely that principle, and its inherent public policy, substantially outweighs

this inconvenience. Before even discussing the larger salient fundamental right princi-

ples we should take a closer look at the real inconvenience of changing venue. Most of

the lay witnesses and experts on both sides of this case have easy access to automo-

biles. The medical examiner, Lyla E. Perez, who performed both the autopsy of Barbara

Vanaman and the examination of the torso and extremity wounds inflicted by Barbara

Vanaman on Robert Vanaman, is located in Woodbine, New Jersey, so clearly Glouces-

ter County is closer to her than Cumberland County and, therefore, more convenient.

First Assistant Prosecutor Kenneth A. Pagliughi hired another expert witness, David

Fowler, of Maryland. Woodbury and Bridgeton are essentially equidistant rides on the

from the Delaware Memorial Bridge I-95 Turnpike Exit, so the proposed venue change

would pose no additional hardship for this expert. The third expert for the state, Robert

P. Spalding, resides in Centerville, Virginia. He, too, would have to travel I-95 North to

the Delaware Memorial Bridge, making Woodbury equally convenient for him. At our

last conference, moreover, Mr. Pagliughi told Your Honor and both the defense attorneys

that he was now in the process of retaining a fourth expert, presumably a biomechanical

expert, whom he identified as residing in Oregon. Woodbury, Gloucester County is clos-

er than Bridgeton, Cumberland County, to the Philadelphia International Airport, where

this expert must necessarily land, which would make Gloucester County more conven-

ient for this state expert.    In short, changing venue from Cumberland County to

Gloucester County will pose no additional inconvenience to the experts for the State.


       As Your Honor is well aware, defense attorneys routinely file change of venue mo-

tions, few of which, if any, are ever granted. These motions are generally form motions

lacking any in-depth discussion of the underlying public policy concerning venue and

how that policy relates to the defendant on trial.

       The United States Supreme Court has ruled that venue concerns in criminal trials


            Matters that touch closely the fair administration of criminal

            justice and public confidence in it. . . . Questions of venue in

            criminal cases, therefore, are not merely matters of formal legal

            procedure. They raise deep issues of public policy. . . . United

            States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 276 (1944)

Historically, the placement of venue was misused by prosecutors in criminal trials

throughout the American colonies. Venue in these cases was often set in Halifax, Nova

Scotia, where the defendants had few rights, and had no legal counsel.    The Administra-

tion of Justice Act of 1774, part of the so-called Intolerable Acts, misused venue in this

fashion for the sole purpose of prejudicing defendants, and even led to the Revolution-

ary War. See Albert W. Alschuler and Andrew G. Deiss, a Brief History of the Criminal

Jury in the United States, 61 University of Chicago Law Review, 867, 874 (1994). To be

sure, proper placement of venue later became incorporated as a fundamental Constitu-

tional Sixth Amendment Due Process Right of a defendant, who was to entitled to an

impartial trial. In turn, the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial must be applied to the

case sub judice and Article 1, Paragraph 10 of the New Jersey Constitution in accord-

ance with Amendment Fourteen of the United States Constitution.


      In criminal prosecutions throughout New Jersey, motions for change of venue are

decided in the sound discretion of the trial judge and such decisions cannot be arbitrary

and vague. See State v. Collins, 2 N.J. 406 (1949). Under R. 3:14-2, moreover, a motion

for change of venue may be made only by a defendant and shall be granted “. . . on such

proofs as the Court directs and shall be granted if the Court finds that a fair and impar-

tial trial cannot otherwise be had.” In State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39 (1983) the New Jer-

sey Supreme Court recognized the constitutional significance of an impartial jury and

that, “the court must consider whether the change of location . . . is necessary to over-

come the realistic likelihood of prejudice resulting from pretrial publicity.” Id. at 67-68.

      A careful review of New Jersey case law reveals a non-exhaustive list of factors

which may be considered by a trial court judge in a motion for change in venue in de-

termining whether or not there is “presumed prejudice” from pretrial publicity, obviating

the need for jury voir dire into the subject matter. These factors include: (1) evidence of

extreme community hostility against defendant; (2) the prominence of either the victim

or defendant within the community; (3) the nature and extent of news coverage; (4) the

size of the community; (5) the nature and gravity of the offense; and (6) the temporal

proximity of the news coverage to the trial. See factors thoughtfully considered by Jus-

tice Zazzali writing for the majority in State v. Nelson, 173 N.J. 417 at 476 (2002), citing

State v. Koedatich, 112 N.J. 225 at 282-284 (1988). See also State v. Harris 156 N.J. 122

(1997)(Appeal After Remand) at 146 and, finally, also see the American Bar Association

Guidelines for Venue and Jury Selection, applying the following factors: (1) the nature

and extent of pretrial publicity, if any, in the proposed venue; (2) the relative burdens on

the respective courts in changing the proposed venue; (3) the relative hardships imposed

on the parties, witnesses, and other interested persons with regard to the proposed ven-

ue); (4) the racial, ethnic, religious and other relevant demographic characteristics of the

proposed venue, insofar as they may affect the likelihood of a fair trial by an impartial

jury; and (5) any other factor which may be required by the interest of justice. Criminal

Justice Standards: Trial by Jury, ABA Crim. Just. Sec. Standard 15:1.4 (3d. ed.).

      In the case sub judice, we have firmly in place all of the following six Nel-

son/Koedatich factors:

      1.    Evidence of Extreme Community Hostility Against Defendant. The ag-

gregate newspaper and television news coverage in this case has ignited extreme hostili-

ty against Defendant Robert Vanaman. The articles are attached in chronological order

as Exhibits A through C, together with several blogs from various newspaper websites in

which newspaper readers comment about the news articles.           In all, there have been

eighty-one newspaper articles covering the Vanaman case: thirty-five appearing in The

Press of Atlantic City; twenty-five appearing in The Daily Journal; and twenty-one ap-

pearing in the Bridgeton News. See Exhibits A, B and C. On top of this print media,

NBC affiliate Channel 40 News has aired eight newscasts on the Vanaman case, raising

the amount of pretrial publicity to ninety separate forms of articles/telecasts. See Ex-

hibit D. Unlike other cases venued in Cumberland County where the media essentially

covers the initial incident and subsequent trial, the news coverage of the Vanaman case

has been nonstop. Every single status conference is covered. There is no doubt that the

trial with be filmed daily and will appear on the front page of all three newspapers and

will begin each television newscast.

      Again, presumed publicity means a torrent of publicity that has created a carni-

val-like setting, including a barrage of inflammatory reporting. See also State v. Harris,

156 N.J. 122 (1997) at 143. Presumed prejudice is illustrated in Rideau v. Louisiana,

373 U.S. 723 (1963) where the confession of the defendant was televised. In that case

the United States Supreme Court stated:

            We do not hesitate to hold, without causing to examine the par-
            ticularized transcript of the voir dire examination of members of
            the jury, that due process of the law, in that case, required a
            trial before a jury drawn from a community of people who had
            not seen or heard Rideau’s televised interview. Due process of
            law, preserved for all by our constitution, demands that no
            such practice as that disclosed by this record shall send any
            accused to his death. Id. at 727 quoting Chambers v. Florida,
            309 U.S. 227 (1940).

      There was a barrage of inflammatory publicity amounting to a huge wave of public

passion. The shooting occurred on May 11, 2006. On May 12, 2006, May 13, 2006 May

14, 2006 the local newspaper, The Daily Journal, repeatedly reported this story on the

front page of each paper.    Each story was accompanied with an emotionally-charged

photographs. The very first image of Robert Vanaman to the community is a very graph-

ic photograph of him in a blue Millville police uniform looking down, while the photo-

graph of Barbara Vanaman has her smiling. See Exhibits B-2, B-3, B-5 and B-7. The

Press of Atlantic City, shows Robert Vanaman in what appears to be a black swat uni-

form. See A-2 and A-20. As discussed later in this brief, Robert Vanaman was the In-

formation and Technology Officer for the Millville Police Department.        He had not

“walked the beat” since a debilitating left knee injury in 1999. He was the computer guy

for the police department and the Millville Municipal Court. He went to work every day

wearing Khakis and a short-sleeve knit polo shirt. If Millville had a SWAT unit, certainly

Robert Vanaman would not be in it. The repeated images are etched into the mind of

the community. The mother of Barbara Vanaman chastised Robert Vanaman for not

appearing at the funeral (although he did appear at the funeral home to pay his respects

yet not cause a problem). There was a memorial service characterized as a “healing ser-

vice” for the community. See A-11.

        On January 22, 2007, reporter Saba Ali of The Press of Atlantic City wrote an

article entitled, “ Homicide Increase Shakes Up Millville.” This article centers on what

Millville residents are talking about at a well-known local eatery in Cumberland County,

namely, Jim’s Lunch, and it states, “. . . Talk flows across the counter loudly and easily

as customers discuss the topics of the town over plates of hamburgers and chipped beef.

But for more times than they’d like, customers here have found themselves talking

about an unsavory topic: murder. Last year, nine people died in homicides here. Four

of them were children. These crimes were horrific and tragic, and in many cases the

reasons for them mysterious. It might be said that the crimes were unspeakable, but

that won’t be true. The truth is, people can’t stop talking about them. ‘The big talk was

about that officer,’ Tabitha Shrout, one of Jim’s waitresses, said during a recent shift.

She was referring to local police sergeant Robert Vanaman, accused of fatally shooting

his wife.” See Exhibit A-36.

      On the first anniversary of the shooting, May 11, 2007, The Daily Journal featured

a front-page article entitled “1 Year Later, Slain Wife Remembered.” See Exhibits B-21

through B-23. The article itself is troubling for three fundamental reasons. First, like

many of The Daily Journal and Bridgeton News articles, continues to show Robert Vanaman

in his jail-issued orange jumpsuit that he wore immediately after his arrest on the arraign-

ment of November 21, 2006, even though he was released from jail on December 1, 2006,

when he posted bail. Secondly, like many of the articles appearing on the front pages of

both The Press of Atlantic City and The Daily Journal, this headline contains the verb

“slay.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary defines “slay” as 1. to deprive of life

by force; put (a person) to death violently; to strike down. 3. to stifle or destroy com-

pletely; eradicate, suppress. 4. to affect overpoweringly; overwhelm. It implies uneven

combatants, such as a farmer slaying an ox. By utilizing this verb “slay”, The Daily Jour-

nal is announcing to its readers that Robert Vanaman has committed an unlawful killing

of his wife with malice aforethought, and he has overwhelmed her.       Thirdly, the article

contains highly inflammatory     statements are made Cumberland County Prosecutor

Ronald Casella    against Robert Vanaman. As we are sure Your Honor is well aware,

Cumberland County First Assistant Prosecutor Kenneth A. Pagliughi asked the February

28, 2007 grand jury panel to indict Mr. Vanaman for tampering with physical evidence

by self inflicting his own knife wounds.        See Grand Jury minutes, Page 59, Line 1

through Page 61, Line 3, attached as Exhibit G. Your Honor is also aware that the de-

fense attorneys have retained a pathologist, James R. Gill, M.D., who will testify that the

wounds suffered by Robert Vanaman were not self inflicted. Cumberland Prosecutor Ron

Casella, goes one further. He says “. . . he believes the wounds are a ruse to disguise

the murder as self-defense,” but Casella won’t say that the police officer inflicted the

wounds on himself.      “All I will say is that the wounds weren’t made by Barbara

Vanaman.” See B-22. This statement, undeniably inadmissible at trial, has greatly preju-

diced Robert Vanaman by suggesting that he had the assistance of an unknown third party

who caused the wounds to his body after he killed his wife. The sentiment is completely ab-

sent in the discovery and clearly the statements by First Assistant Prosecutor Kenneth A.

Pagliughi to the grand jury were meant to be factual but really were opinion. It is no won-

der why most Cumberland County residents know about the case and have formed prejudicial

opinions and could not be fair or impartial in hearing the evidence. The blogs associated

with the article “Judge Rules Vanaman May Claim Self Defense,” written by Miles Jack-

son on Friday, November 30, 2007, are worth discussing. The blogs, beginning on Page

3, state:

            Barb was petite, and she was small-boned and was the same
            height as me, 5'4". . . Barb was small compared to Rob’s size.
            There is no argument as to who could overpower who. Rob
            most certainly overpower her. In fact, being that he was trained
            to overtake an attacker . . . his wounds were superficial and
            there was no need to be in the hospital. That info I got from a
            staff member.

            . . . I would say without a doubt . . . a very slight . . . woman in
            size and weight . . . 5'2".” The next entry states, “. . . another
            selfless murder, I remember Barb from class and she was a pe-
            tite woman. No way did Rob at six foot need to act in self de-
            fense. He murdered her in cold blood then cut up his arms,
            which were not deep at all. Another idiot judge who lets this
            murderer out on bail. He should be in jail. O’Neill is delaying
            this and he knows he has no case. He has had over a year. Get
            him in prison for life. I just hope this jury is intelligent enough.

            . . . This is nothing new for the male to get away with murder. I
            wish it had been the other way around but then she would nev-
            er see the light of day. Vanaman is a cold-blooded killer and he
            will get away with murder. Just like all Millville cops, none are
            any good, paid killers! . . .

            It is a weak case for Rob given that the comparison of the differ-
            ence in size, and he was trained to disarm a potential attacker .
            . . I have no sympathy for him, only Barb, the children and her
            family. She was taken away from all of them because of him.
            That’s the fact!

            I might be accused of being whacked out but I’ve known a few
            “so-called Millville cops” and one out of five is a good one. Any-

            way, Vanaman is a cold-blooded killer but he will get away with
            everything . . .

            I am sorry but there is no way he shot her in self defense. As a
            police officer he is trained to be able to get a knife away from a
            person, especially a woman as small as she was. He got into a
            heated argument with his wife, shot her out of anger, then in-
            flicted wounds on himself. Case closed.

See Exhibits B-26 through B-49.

      All of these individuals writing blogs have mistaken the relative dimensions of

Robert and Barbara Vanaman. The May 12, 2006 autopsy report of Southern Regional

Medical Examiner Lyla E. Perez has the height of Barbara Vanaman as five feet, seven

and a half inches, and her weight at one hundred seventy pounds. Barbara was no frail,

petite lady. She was an aerobics instructor at two gyms and went by the moniker “Di-

va.” She had a weight room in her house and was both a physically fit and a physical

person. The repeated photographs of her create an illusion of her looking both demure

and petite. We have listed nine expert witnesses in this case. These news articles and

blogs suggest that Robert Vanaman somehow was trained to remove a knife from an

individual. We have named as an expert witness Thomas Jerdan, Jr. who, in his report

of January 29, 2008, states that police officers are trained under N.J.P.O. 9.6.10 not to

attempt to disarm a suspect. Mr. Jerdan was the trainer of Robert Vanaman when he

attended the Atlantic County Police Academy. We have also named Millville Police De-

partment Sergeant Ronald A. Harvey, who was the weapons trainer and weapons super-

visor of Sergeant Robert Vanaman. He will testify that Robert Vanaman received no dis-

arm training tactics while he was in the Millville Police Department since he graduated

from the Atlantic County Police Academy in 1991. This sentiment is echoed by Acting

Millville Chief Edmond Grennon, who has also been named as an expert witness. Also,

we have named as a martial arts expert Dr. Joseph A. Artesi, Sr., who is a Tenth-Degree

Red Belt in Karate, as registered by the American College of Dans. Dr. Artesi, more im-

portantly, has given lectures and seminars to various police academies on disarm tech-

niques. The Millville Police Department did not receive such training. The bottom line,

therefore, is without disarm techniques Robert Vanaman had no training to remove a

knife from an attacker. Dr. Artesi will explain how such an endeavor can be fatal for an

untrained police officer such as Robert E. Vanaman. Lastly, the defense has named a

national defensive tactics instructor, namely, Emanuel Kapelsohn, who is a certified FBI

Firearms Instructor, Glock Pistol Armorer Instructor, NRA Certified Police Instructor,

Pistol Instructor, Rifle Instructor, Law Enforcement Instructor, Police Tactical Instruc-

tor, H&K Armorer Instructor, Sig Pistol Instructor, Mossberg Shotgun Armorer Instruc-

tor, Colt Rifle and Submachine Gun Armorer Instructor, Justice System Training In-

structor, U.S. Treasury Department Pistol Safety Officer Instructor and a Smith & Wes-

son Armorer Instructor.    He has testified before the United States Senate Judiciary

Committee, the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, New York

City Council, New Jersey Assembly, Massachusetts Assembly and the Florida Assembly.

He has been qualified as an expert witness in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsyl-

vania, Maryland, Arizona, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Georgia, California, Pennsylvania,

Connecticut and Tennessee. It is Mr. Kapelsohn’s expert opinion, looking at all of the

evidence, that the shooting of Barbara Vanaman was in self defense and, in keeping with

standard police training on use of force in New Jersey and in the United States of Ameri-


      There are a number of foreign jurisdictions which have held that newspaper articles

have warranted a change of venue. See People v. Lucas, 131 Misc. 664, 228 NYS 31 (1928),

granting a motion for change of venue in a prosecution for theft where newspaper articles

created an atmosphere rendering a fair and impartial trial improbable. In that opinion the

New York court held that the headlines were of such large type and were illustrated by pic-

tures that were inflammatory. The Court pointed out that generally cases should not be tried

in the newspapers, nor should defendants be convicted upon general principles but, rather,

should have impartial trials based on the law and on the factual evidence and that such could

not be obtained given the pretrial atmosphere.    See also United States v. Ebens, 654 F. Supp.

144 (1987), determining that pretrial publicity simply was too severe to be cured by a careful

voir dire of a prospective jury panel and venue should have been transferred based on pre-

sumed prejudice against the defendant. It must be noted that in the Ebens case there were

68 pages of articles from the local newspapers, public rallies and national television over five

years. In the case sub judice we have all of that and more. We have 82 pages in less than

two years. See also Commonwealth v. Cohen, 413 A2d 1066 (Pa. 1980), reversing a conviction

of murder based on pretrial publicity where 53 percent of the jurors questioned were excused

on the merits based on pretrial publicity. See also Commonwealth v. Casper, 374 A2d 737

(Pa. 1977).

      We are both great fans of both the First Amendment of the United States Constitution

in general, and freedom of the press, specifically. In fact, one of us read two local newspapers

and one national newspaper daily. These local newspaper headlines, however, are designed

solely to increase circulation of the newspapers by eliciting strong public outcry. Headlines

that use the terms “cop slaying” and subsequent “news” articles showing a disheveled Robert

Vanaman still wearing his orange jail jumpsuit at a status conference six months after he

was released from jail while depicting a smiling, demure, and well-coifed Barbara Vanaman

are not designed to promote fair and accurate reporting. Rather, these are attempts by the

editors to grab attention. A customer rushing to work who stops at Wawa to buy his morning

cup of coffee will notice the attention-grabbing headline and pick up the paper. One can only

speculate how the editors will portray this motion to change venue. Those people will wind

up as jurors. Put together, these headlines, photographs, posters and articles amount to pre-

sumed prejudice accruing against Robert Vanaman. The first Nelson/Koedatich factor is


       2.    The Prominence of Either the Victim or Defendant Within the Commu-

nity. It is well known that Robert Vanaman is a sergeant with the Millville Police De-

partment. He had been employed with that Department since 1992 and headed the ID

Information and Technology Department within the Millville police force. His status as a

police officer has made him prominent within the community.

       3.    The Nature and Extent of News Coverage. The magnitude and tenor of

the pretrial publicity surrounding the Vanaman case make it clear that it is simply the

daily bread and butter for the local press and the media. An independent review of the

media print alone results in the inescapable conclusion that there was, indeed, an enormous

wave of public passion surrounding this incident, resulting in the editorializing of it by the

media. Please see all eighty-two articles in Exhibits A, B and C.

       4.    The Size of the Community. The fourth Nelson/Koedatich factor requires

that we compare the area statistics of the county in which the case currently is venued

with the county in which venue is proposed. Cumberland County is a relatively small

county in the Southern region of the State of New Jersey.       For Your Honor’s review, we

have attached as Exhibit I the United States Census Bureau statistics with respect to

Cumberland County, Gloucester County and Camden County. For Cumberland County

we have the most recent statistics for 2006; therefore, we will compare all three venues

for 2006. The population in the three counties are as follows: 154,823 for Cumberland;

282,131 for Gloucester; and 517,001 for Camden. The population changes for the three

counties are as follows: Cumberland County rose 5.7 percent; Gloucester County rose

10.3 percent; and Camden County rose 1.8 percent. Persons under 18 years old are

24.1 percent in Cumberland County, 23.2 percent in Gloucester County and 25 percent

in Camden County. Female persons are 48.4 percent in Cumberland County, 51.3 per-

cent in Gloucester County and 51.5 percent in Camden County. White people are 74.1

percent in Cumberland County, 84.6 percent in Gloucester County and 72.9 percent in

Camden County. Black people are 21.8 percent in Cumberland County, 10.1 percent in

Gloucester County and 20.6 percent in Camden County.        High school graduates are

68.5 percent in Cumberland County, 84.3 percent in Gloucester and 80.3 percent in

Camden County. Bachelor’s degree or higher are 11.7 percent in Cumberland County,

22 percent in Gloucester County and 24 percent in Camden County. Mean household

income for the year 2004 is $39,335 in Cumberland County, $59,516 in 2004 for

Gloucester County and $48,748 in 2004 for Camden County. With respect to racial de-

mographics, this case is not one which would entail any racial involvement. It is well

known that the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that a defendant has the “. . . right

to trial by an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross section of the communi-

ty.” State v. Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 (1986). All in all, the demographics of Gloucester

County compare favorably with those of Cumberland County. Gloucester County would

be an appropriate change of venue.     The other salient    element of this fourth Nel-

son/Koedatich factor is that a close review of the demographics makes clear that the

Cumberland County pool of eligible jurors is simply not of large enough into protect the

rights of Robert Vanaman from pretrial publicity. With the smallest population of the

three counties at 154,823, Cumberland is too susceptible to the enormous pretrial pub-

licity generated by the television and print media. If the advertising departments for the

three newspaper are to be believed, the print media circulates its newspapers to 52,500

readers (10,000 for the Press of Atlantic City, 21,500 for The Daily Journal, and 22,000

for the combined Millville/Bridgeton News). With respect to television media, NBC affili-

ate Channel 40 News claims to reach over 100,000 viewers in the Southern New Jersey.

These numbers probably overlap (some of the print media readers also watch the tele-

vised news). Even if they do overlap, however, the portion of the population exposed to

the prejudicial pretrial publicity is greater than half. Again, we must move venue to a

greater population to protect the right to a fair trial.

      5.     The Nature and Gravity of the Offense.        Defendant Sergeant Robert E.

Vanaman has been indicted for the most grave offense in the New Jersey Penal Code,

namely, murder, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3a (1) or (2), a first-degree crime. Adding

to the gravity of the offense, Cumberland County First Assistant Prosecutor Kenneth A.

Pagliughi asked the February 28, 2007 grand jury panel to indict Mr. Vanaman for both

tampering with physical evidence, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:28-6(1), and obstructing

administration of law or other governmental function, in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1.

He will plead for a petit jury to convict Robert E. Vanaman on purposely killing his wife

with malice aforethought, and then self inflicting his own knife wounds to his torso and

upper extremities to make it look as though he was acting in self-defense and, thereaf-

ter, lying to law enforcement officers by placing a 911 emergency call by stating that his

wife had stabbed him when he knew that information to be false.          See Grand Jury

minutes, Page 59, Line 1 through Page 61, Line 3, attached as Exhibit G. It is hard to

imagine a graver offense, especially now that the death penalty has been overturned by

the New Jersey State Legislature.

      6.     The Temporal Proximity of the News Coverage to the Trial.                As Your

Honor is well aware, virtually nothing happened at our status conference of March 31,

2008, yet that hearing made the front page of The Daily Journal April 1, 2008 edition

with an article written by Joseph P. Smith, entitled, “Vanaman Defense Seeks Unusual

Strategy.” See The Dail Journal articles at Exhibit B-59. Your Honor should also peruse

the twenty-two blogs with respect to this article, which appear in Exhibits B-61 through

B-67. Parenthetically, every single reader comment is negative. Likewise, The Press of

Atlantic City ran an article on April 1, 2008, entitled, “Vanaman Attorneys Want Trial

Moved,” written by reporter John Martins. See Exhibits A-60 through A-61. Reporter

Matt Dunn of the Bridgeton News published his article, entitled, “Vanaman’s Lawyer

Asks Trial Moved Elsewhere” on April 3, 2008. See article in Exhibit C. Lastly, NBC

affiliate Channel 40 News ran its newscast of the status conference on March 31, 2008

at11:00 p.m. See Exhibit D.

      These articles are within close proximity to the upcoming trial. In short, we have

overwhelmingly satisfied the sixth Nelson/Koedatich six pertaining to temporal proximity

of the news coverage. As this factor can especially prejudice a defendant, it is an appro-

priate point to discuss the upcoming “Run for Barb Run.” Thousands of posters, pam-

phlets, and pledge forms, all of which appear in Exhibit E, advertising this event have been

deposited at convenience stores, beauty salons, barber shops, restaurants, diners, spas, health

clubs, coffee shops, and virtually anyplace where people congregate throughout Cumberland

County. The pamphlet was available in the foyer of the Olympia Diner, a popular Greek res-

taurant located in Vineland, Cumberland County. The entry form suggests that the form,

along with $20.00 or $25.00, should be mailed to Run for Barb, Event Coordinator, P.O. Box

708, Vineland, NJ 08362, and states, “. . . All pre-registered runners and walkers guaranteed

a T-shirt. Race day registration T-shirts available while they last . . .” See Exhibit E. This

guarantee means that thousands of these future race participants will be walking around

throughout Cumberland County wearing the T-shirts, reminding them of the event. The

“Pledge Form” in the pamphlet further reads, “As a race participant, you can help raise addi-

tional funds by seeking pledge money, though this is not required to participate. Funds will

be used by Run For Barb for awareness, protection programs, and identified charities.” The

pledge form then lists fourteen lines for contributors’ names, who presumably will be elicited

to contribute money after discussing how Barbara Vanaman was a great mother and another

sad statistic for domestic violence. The final page of the pamphlet shows a smiling Barbara.

This is presumably not how she looked when she was assaulting her children or stabbing her

husband with a steak knife. Under the photograph is a paragraph entitled “Raising Aware-

ness,” which reads as follows:

             A third of all women’s injuries being seen in emergency rooms are
             no accident. Most are the result of deliberate, premeditated acts of
             violence. Frequently, they occur over and over (Dr. Kevin Fullin,
             American Medical Association, public service ad, Time magazine).
             Thirty four percent of all female homicide victims (over the age of
             15) have their lives taken by their husbands, ex-husbands or boy-
             friends (National Women’s Abuse Prevention Project). Approxi-
             mately two thirds of reported domestic violence incidents are classi-
             fied as “simple assaults”, which is a misdemeanor rather than a fel-
             ony. But up to fifty percent of those “simple assaults” result in
             physical injuries that are as, or more, serious than ninety percent of
             all rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults (NOW legal defense
             fund). An average of nearly four children die every day as a result
             of child abuse or neglect (1,400 in 2002). Children who grow up in
             violent homes have a seventy-four percent high likelihood of com-
             mitting criminal assaults (Survey of Massachusetts Department of
             Youth Services). Statistics from the Home Office show that one in
             six men will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime.
             (Findings from the 2001 national British Crime Survey).

See last page of pamphlet in Exhibit E.

             Also attached in Exhibit E is a Donor/Sponsor Form for this event, soliciting the


Platinum Sponsorship, $1,500+, Company Name in Brochure, on T-Shirt and All Ads
Gold Sponsorship, $500+, Company Name in Brochure and on T-Shirt
Silver Sponsorship, $250+, Company Name on T-Shirt
Bronze Sponsorship, $100+, Company Name on T-Shirt
Appreciated Sponsorship, $25+, Recognized at Event

Nearly all these poster and pamphlet statements are hearsay and they would be inadmissible

at trial.


To top