In its February 14, 2005, ruling on this issue, based on review of the responses to the juror questionnaires and consideration of the parties’ arguments, the court concluded that Johnson had not yet been able to meet the high threshold of proof required to show that this was one of the rare and extreme cases in which the court could presume inherent prejudice based on pretrial publicity at the first tier of the analysis of a motion for a change of venue pursuant to Rule 21(a). See, e.g., United States v. Nelson, 347 F.3d 701, 707-08 (8th Cir.2003) (stating this two-tiered analysis for appellate review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 486, 160 L.Ed.2d 355 (2004). In that ruling, the court concluded, further, tha 1662124, *1 (Mass.Ct.App. Dec. 28, 2001) (unpublished table decision) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the court finds that Johnson waived
holding that a change of venue has no affect on the applicable state law and that change of venue is but a change of courtrooms holding that the issue of change of venue was waived where the defendants motion for a change of venue was denied without prejudice to its renewal during jury selection but the motion was not renewed during empanelment of the jury holding that where a defendant if given the opportunity to renew a motion for a change of venue immediately prior to trial but fails to do so the right to challenge venue is waived holding in a capital case that the defendant waived his argument that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a change of venue where the trial court took the motion under advisement but the defendant failed to seek a ruling on the motion and failed to renew the motion after the jurors had been qualified holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal