There are at least seven variables that counsel must consider before deciding to move for a change of venue: pretrial publicity, demographic characteristics of alternative venues, availability of resources for evaluating potential jurors, conditions of the defendant's confinement, selection of a trial judge, the impact of a change on the attorney's ability to represent the client, and the prospects for relief at subsequent stages of the proceeding. Under common law, the Constitution, and case law, the defendant need only establish that there is reasonable likelihood that jury prejudice will prevent a fair trial. The grounds and sources of prejudice most frequently cited by courts in transferring venue are publicity and community prejudice. Case law focuses on the content of publicity and the extent to which it has been disseminated in the community, specifically considering inflammatory tone, reports referring to confessions or prior criminal history, name calling, use of the defendant's name, and reports disclosing information that is inadmissible evidence. Counsel can also argue that factual publicity promotes prejudice, citing the defendant's right to have evidence against him or her presented in court first. To minimize the danger that the judge may choose an unfavorable alternative venue, counsel can present evidence that focuses attention on the district the defense believes is most conducive to a fair trial. The motion for change must argue against using voir dire either as a test or a remedy for eliminating bias. Counsel should also determine whether the jurisdiction in which prosecution is brought permits an interlocutory appeal of a trial court order denying a change of venue. A growing body of civil cases also recognizes that juror prejudice can undermine a defendant's right to a fair trial. The paper includes 53 footnotes.