"Davis Found Able for Trial”; (5) August 12, 1979, "Davis to Face Murder Charges as an Adult”; (6) September 16, 1979, "Davis Venue Decision Due”; and (7) June 8, 1980, "Davis Trial Begins Monday.” 12 . In the next subsection, the court addresses, but rejects, Davis' contention that, notwithstanding the jurors' assertions of neutrality, the voir dire was inadequate to divulge preformed biases, particularly biases arising from the pretrial publicity. 13 . The court notes that, on. the question of whether pretrial publicity denied Davis a fair trial by a jury free from actual prejudices, the court finds that it is appropriate to consider as a mitigating factor any cautionary instructions given by the state trial court to the jury. Cf. U.S. v. Richmond, 222 F.3d 414, 416 (7th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In Davis’ case, the state trial court
holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to continue trial three months where although trial was complex and records were voluminous court had already granted two prior continuances and continuance of three weeks was sufficient to prepare for trial holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence where the evidence would serve only to impeach  testimony holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to sever because trial of three defendants would not create confusion holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to continue due to pretrial publicity in part because court instructed jury on three separate occasions to consider only evidence presented in the courtroom holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question