factual and objective media coverage of a less serious and sensational crime in an area with a greater population.” (Doc. No. 92 at 12.) The court, however, is not persuaded that, in this case, the fact that pretrial publicity occurred in a county with a much smaller population than say, for example, metropolitan Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the crime and trial occurred in Murphy, supra, demonstrates presumed prejudice. The court recognizes that the size of the town is a factor in determining the effect of pretrial publicity on the citizens of that community. See Rideau, 373 U.S. at 724, 83 S.Ct. 1417 (finding due process violation after defendant’s filmed confession was repeatedly broadcast on local television news of small town); Goss v. Nelson, 439 F.3d 621, 633 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the court finds that Davis’
holding that a change of venue was not warranted due to publicity surrounding an unrelated murder with common features because the defendant failed to establish any specific prejudice against him as a result of the publicity holding the rule was not applicable in a pretrial venue hearing holding that the district court should have engaged in a more detailed inquiry when pretrial publicity was vast a third of potential jurors had an opinion about the guilt of the defendant and all jurors selected had been exposed to pretrial publicity holding that notwithstanding that the case generated massive pretrial publicity a motion to change venue was not improperly denied as such pretrial publicity was not presumptively prejudicial because it consisted of straight news stories relating cold hard facts  recognizing that the relatively small population of the trial venue is a factor in assessing pretrial publicity but holding that the record pointed to a community able to supply a sufficient pool of unbiased potential jurors