DNA evidence be excluded; (10) Overton cl n was even beneficial to Overton. For example, one newspaper article illustrated that Overton’s DNA did not match with the DNA evidence from other unsolved murders. Thus, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that the pretrial publicity did not completely favor the prosecution’s version of the case. Accordingly, these factors do not support the assertion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to change venue. 2. Difficulty Encountered in Actually Selecting a Jury Notwithstanding that some pretrial publicity did exist here, the record establishes that the jurors were not so infected that they could not possibly “put these matters out of their minds.” Rolling, 695 So.2d at 284; see Knight, 866 So.2d at 1209 (<HOLDING>). During voir dire, most of the prospective
holding that there was no abuse of discretion for denying the motion to change venue because although there had been some publicity surrounding the murder an independent review of the record demonstrates that there was no difficulty in seating the jury 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 the trial court committed no error in sustaining objection to plaintiffs testimony that the water had been there for some time because the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of how long the puddle had been there 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 that there was no ineffective assistance due to appellate counsels failure to challenge the trial courts denial of the motion to change venue because the defendant failed to show actual prejudice