A simple change of venue would have accomplished nothing. This was not simple and ordinary "pre-trial publicity." Neither change of venue nor passage of time would have blunted the public emotions across the USA. Passions and social pressures ran highest in San Diego (and still do).
Defense lawyers described it as a "lynch mob mentality," and many here would agree with that description. It was a witch hunt, fueled by daily emotional propaganda. (I call this "street view," which has no serious knowledge of or regard for court procedures and the law.)
"Street view" demanded revenge for the death of a child. It demanded Westerfield be convicted.
The pressure upon jurors did not come from the "media," which can be easily avoided or turned off. Newspapers, TV and radio presented tidbits of information that most jurors had already heard anyway in the 4-5 months of storytelling both outside and inside the courtroom.
Judge Mudd was myopic in his focus on "the media," while missing the true source of pressure to which he was leaving the jurors exposed: friends, family and co-workers.
The real pressure to convict Westerfield came from family, co-workers, supervisors and best friends. This did not come in the form of "evidence" or tidbits of information but from the pressure to convict.
Jurors lived freely among these people during over half of their jury service. Jurors were never removed from their midst - never sequestered.
If the Westerfield trial was NOT a case demanding sequestration, I can't imagine what kind of case it would ever be used for!
In 1995 the O.J. criminal trial jurors were sequestered. As such, they had the courage to render a highly unpopular opinion: Not Guilty. More recently, another firestorm of public opinion swirled around the Casey Anthony trial. That case had both a change of venue and sequestration of jurors. Jurors again had the strength to render an unpopular opinion: Not Guilty. In many states, sequestration is required by law for either the deliberation period or the whole case in a capital crime trial. Westerfield's lawyers repeatedly demanded sequestration, and were denied.
Would the decision have been different if Westerfield jurors had been protected from all the social and emotional pressures which demanded a Guilty verdict? Yes. The jury would have remained in a state of reason not emotion, the condition required to uphold the "courtroom view" and the law.
They would have actually WEIGHED the evidence presented, and would have been true "triers of fact" under the law. As it was, they ignored and violated the laws given to them. I ask again:
If the charged atmosphere of this trial did NOT demand sequestration, what kind of case ever would?