Whether a trial court's refusal to change venue in a capital case with extensive prejudicial pretrial publicity violates due process and the defendant's right to an impartial jury

In a capital case where the pretrial publicity was extensive, gruesome, and negative, including statements by the current Attorney General that the Jimmy Spencer was a “violent offender” and an example of a “badly broken” parole system, and where a significant portion of the jury venire reported a pre-existing belief in Mr. Spencer’s guilt, did the trial court’s refusal to change venue and the lower court's decision holding that “prejudice is not presumed” and that the trial court “did not abuse its discretion” conflict with this Court's decision in Sheppard v. Maxwell holdin g that “[d]ue process requires that the accused receive a trial by an impartial jury free from outside influences”and the Sixth and Fourteenth amendments? i