(1) Johnson had not identified any individual press reports or series of press reports that could be characterized as “inflammatory and accusatory,” see, e.g., United States v. Allee, 299 F.3d 996, 1000 (8th Cir.2002); (2) the percentage of affected jurors in either division, only 14% to 15%, was simply too low to warrant a presumption of prejudice, see, e.g., Nelson, 347 F.3d at 709 (29% of jurors with “strong or fixed” opinions was too low); and (3) Johnson’s assertion that prejudice could be “read into” the jurors’ responses to various questions was not persuasive. The court now reaffirms each of these conclusions. Moreover, the court now adds that the extensive voir dire of jurors actually appearing for jury selection in no way revealed the kind of prejudice that Johnson App.1999) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Nutter, 760 N.E.2d 814, 2001
holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal 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 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 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 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