ATTORNEY IN DRUG CASE WANTS CHANGE OF VENUE

The attorney for a man facing trial in Hardin Circuit Court has
requested a change of venue for his client, saying that a fair trail
cannot be held in Hardin County because of prejudiced media coverage.

Charles Steven Blakley's trial for methamphetamine-related charges is
scheduled for March 20, but his attorney, Mike Moulton, filed a
motion Tuesday seeking a change of venue to elsewhere in the state. A
hearing will be held in Circuit Court on Monday to address the issue.

Neither Moulton nor officials at Hardin County Commonwealth's
Attorney's office would comment.

Blakley was sentenced to 15 years in prison in another
methamphetamine trial that concluded in January. It was the county's
first meth trial, in which Blakley was convicted for possession of
drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance. His
cases have been in the local news since they began more than a year
ago.

Moulton, in his motion, said the media's "prejudice is of such a
great nature that a fair trial could not be had."

"Commencing with the date of (Blakley's) arrest, the daily paper in
Hardin, LaRue and Grayson counties, The News-Enterprise, has carried
sensational stories purporting to relate facts specifically
concerning the defendant, including referring to him as a drug
kingpin," Moulton said. The "publicity transcends the normal amount
of newspaper comment concerning the defendant and his pending cases."

A search of The News-Enterprise archives could not find any reference
to Blakley as a "drug kingpin."

Moulton's motion continued, saying that "in addition to the
circulation of rumors and stories in the aforesaid newspaper, radio
stations in this county have likewise carried news reports at various
hours of the day and have sent stories concerning this defendant into
practically every home in Hardin, LaRue and Grayson counties."

Moulton also accused officials at the Hardin County Commonwealth's
Attorney's Office with making statements and committing actions
regarding Blakley that are not allowed under past Supreme Court
rulings.