if the potential jurors demonstrate such actual prejudice that it would be an abuse of discretion to deny a timely change-of-venue motion. Nelson, 347 F.3d at 707-08. In the pretrial ruling, the court also expressly denied Johnson’s November 4, 2004, Motion For Change Of Venue (docket no. 204) “without prejudice to renewal during jury selection,” noting that, in order to prevail on such a renewed motion, Johnson would have to show that “actual prejudice” in the jury pool, such that she could not receive a fair trial in this district, could be inferred. See Order of February 14, 2005. Thus, the door was left wide open for Johnson to renew her motion for a change of venue during o L.Ed.2d 107 (2004); People v. Maury, 30 Cal.4th 342, 388-89, 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 603, 68 P.3d 1, 42 (2003) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1117, 124 S.Ct. 1058,
holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal holding that the defendant waived the issue of change of venue where the trial court denied the motion for a change of venue without prejudice stating that it was willing to reconsider the motion at any time during the jury selection process but the defendant never renewed the motion for a change of venue holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire 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 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