prejudice from pretrial publicity. The usual approach is to demand a showing of actual prejudice. In the 1981 case of People v. Botham, the Colorado court overturned the defendant's murder conviction partly because there had been a denial of a change of venue. The court emphasized the number of jurors who had expressed an opinion that the defendant was guilty, the number who had been exposed to pretrial publicity, the juror's knowledge of the details of the crime, and the information that was brought forth on voir dire to find that the defendant met the burden of showing a presumption of partiality. A more typical finding is seen in Swindler v. State, a 1991 case from Arkansas that upheld the death penalty and rejected challenges to jury bias and change of venue motion where three jurors were seated who had read and heard about the case, and over 80% of the jurors called were excused for cause. Extensive case law is discussed. Perhaps the most famous case in pre-trial publicity is that of Sheppard v. Maxwell argued by F. Lee Bailey. Sam Sheppard, a doctor was convicted of second degree murder of his wife. The case had been subjected to a large amount of pre-trial news coverage and widespread speculation about Sheppard's guilt. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the case should be remanded for a new trial, opining that the trial court should have limited news access prior to the trial. Change of venue requests, choice of a new venue and where the new venue is sought because of local prejudice varies in different jurisdictions. General case law is discussed. Absence of witness or evidence Continuances are traditionally granted to allow the defendant additional time for procuring an absent witness, or other evidence necessary for the defense or the prosecution of the applicant's case. Several factors are considered in issuing a continuance on the ground that a witness or evidence is absent: The expected evidence or witness is material and competent to the trial. There is a probability that the evidence will be forthcoming if the case is continued. (Case law reviewed) The moving party (the party requesting the continuance) has exercised due diligence (issued a subpoena) to secure the evidence or witness. Absence or incapacitation of counsel To obtain a continuance on the basis of absence of counsel in a criminal trial, the defendant must show that