Was petitioner denied a fair trial due to the trial court's abuse of discretion?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ; I. PETITIONER WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL _BY_TRIAL COURT'S ABUSE OF DISCRETION _ . ; The state court's determidation that Petitiomer was not denied a fair trial before an impartial jury is contrary toy or aN unreasonable application of clearly established Federal ~ . law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court in Groppi v. Wisconsin, 91 S.Ct. 490 (1971) holding; when pretrial , publicity is so persuasive or inflammatory, the defendant Need ; Not prove actual prejudice. Also see Shepard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 at 351 (1966) and Commonwealth v. Karenbauer, 715 A.2d . 1086 (Pa. 1998) cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1258 (1999). Where petitioner filed a pretrial motion for change of venue, in which Petitioner exercised his right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, §8 of the Pennsylvania Constitutions Citing; pretrial publicity was so seNsational and inflammatory, slanted towards conviction rather than factual ; evidence, revealing Petitioner's prior criminal record, in such a small rural community as Somerset County, Pennsylvania with : a limited jury pool. The sensational and inflammatory publicity continued up until the day of jury selection commenced. The trial court's denial of Petitioner's request for a change of venue denied him a substantive right to a fair trial. Trial court's abuse of discretion in this instance constitutes plain error. See United States v. Olano, 113 S.Ct. (1993). , _ When determining the factors warranting a change of venue, _the courts have held that the size and character of the area are concerned and whether there has been a sufficient: coolingoff period between the public and trial must be evaluated to : determine whether the community has become saturated with’ a : prejudicial publicity. Commonwealth v. Krasfer, 285 Pa. Super. : 389, 427@A.2d 1169 (1981). Even though the court must determine . : within its sound discretion whether a fair and impartial jury cat be impaneled, the record indicates that on the day of the jury selection, a clear number of potential jurors had heard about the case, read about the case, aNd knew about the subject C y ; of the case to alert the court that a problem exists. (R. 125a134a). While percentages of the jury panel were not. conclusive, : Pefisylvania courts have held that where a Number of people have been questiofNed and have an opiyion om a defendant, refusal to grant a change of venue was an abuse of discretion. . Commonwealth v. Cohen, 489 Pa. 167, 413 A.2d 1066 (1980). _ . A change of venue cannot be granted unless the defendant : caf prove actual prejudice which would prevent the paneling . of an impartial jury. Commonwealth v. Karefbauver, 552 Pa. 420, 715 A.2d 1086 (1998). A presumption of prejudice, which must be shown by the defendant, does pot arise from pretrial publicity alone. Id. Furthermore, sensational" or “inflammatory" publicity : as well as any public revealing the defendant's prior criminal record or confession will be cause for a court to presume ; . prejudice. Id. i The substance of the instant case is semsational in and . of itself. The charges against the Petitioner were voluminous : : ' in total and heinous in Nature, Not necessarily because of the alleged acts themselves, but more appropriately because such alleged acts were to have occurred against a child. (R. 70a112a). , Prior to the commeNcement of trial im this action, multiple p