Attorneys representing Larry Millete, accused of murdering his wife May “Maya” Millete, are seeking to move his upcoming trial out of Chula Vista due to extensive media coverage that they argue has biased public perception.
Millete has been charged in connection with his wife’s disappearance, which has captivated the local community since she was last seen on January 7, 2021.
His legal team contends that the publicity surrounding the case makes it nearly impossible to find impartial jurors within the South Bay area.
In a court filing, attorneys Liann Sabatini and Colby Ryan pointed out that the saturation of media coverage poses a significant risk of juror bias that would significantly undermine Millete’s right to a fair trial.
They specifically mentioned that the small population of Chula Vista would not be able to sufficiently dilute the adverse publicity surrounding the case.
As part of their motion for a change of venue, Millete’s defense is requesting that the trial be relocated to either Vista or El Cajon.
A hearing regarding this motion is scheduled for next week.
According to the defense’s arguments, jurors in the South Bay area have likely been influenced by the extensive media portrayal of Millete, which often highlights his alleged lifestyle and personality rather than focusing solely on the evidence of the case.
The motion echoes concerns over a news conference held by Chula Vista police and the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office shortly after Millete’s arrest.
During this briefing, District Attorney Summer Stephan presented various pieces of evidence that suggested Millete’s involvement in his wife’s murder.
The defense claims that many of those details were misleading and aired with the intention to sway public opinion regarding Millete’s guilt.
For instance, Stephan referenced recordings from home surveillance that purportedly captured sharp noises in the vicinity of the Millete home on the night Maya disappeared.
Although it was suggested these sounds might be gunshots, the FBI could not confirm this due to the recording’s poor quality.
Millete’s attorneys argue that even suggesting these sounds were gunshots prejudices potential jurors and serves as inadmissible evidence against him, which they claim jurors are likely to remember and be influenced by long before the trial even begins.
Another point raised by the prosecution involved a series of messages allegedly sent by Millete to “spell casters” in an effort to prevent Maya from leaving him.
The prosecutor claimed some messages indicated Millete had “homicidal ideations” toward his wife.
However, the defense counters that none of the messages explicitly request killing Maya, a detail not shared during the news conference.
Stephan also stated that she had never encountered spell casting in prior cases, which the defense argues sensationalized Millete’s character and made it difficult for the community to set aside biases related to him.
The defense suggests that references to such practices likely alienate jurors, particularly those of religious backgrounds that condemn witchcraft, further complicating the prospect of an impartial jury.
The legal filing hints at possible strategies for Millete’s defense, including arguments regarding a lack of evidence suggesting a murder took place at the Millete residence.
The motion cites that investigators revealed no signs of gunfire in the home, no traces of Maya’s blood found on the premises, or in Millete’s vehicle.
Additionally, cadaver dogs that searched both the house and the vehicle failed to detect any signs of a corpse.
The defense also pointed out Maya’s past behavior, asserting that she had left the family home without informing Millete on multiple occasions, only to return several days later.
Millete, 43, remains in custody without bail as he awaits trial.
If convicted of murder, he could face a maximum sentence of 25 years to life in state prison.
Alongside the murder charge, he is also facing a felony charge for possessing an assault weapon.
image source from：timesofsandiego
