Luong v. State, 199 So. 3d 139

In February 2008, a Mobile County grand jury charged Lam Luong with five counts of capital murder for the deaths of his four children.
The killings occurred January 7, 2008, when Luong drove their family van to the Dauphin Island Bridge and threw the children off the bridge to the water below, resulting in multiple fatalities and Luong's confession.
Luong was convicted on five capital-murder counts and sentenced to death on each count.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and sentences, citing alleged pretrial publicity prejudice and related trial-venue and evidentiary rulings, among other issues.
The Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded, addressing venue/pretrial publicity, voir dire, defense funding for mitigation investigation, and sentencing-evidence issues, then remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial publicity created presumed prejudice requiring transfer	Luong contends publicity was pervasive, prejudicial, and required transfer.	State argues publicity does not amount to presumed prejudice given venue factors and discretion.	Prejudice not presumed; no venue transfer required.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not conducting individual voir dire on pretrial publicity	Luong asserts that individual voir dire was necessary to uncover bias.	State contends voir dire via questionnaires and group questioning suffices.	Trial court's discretion supported; no mandated individual voir dire.
Whether the trial court exceeded discretion by denying funds to travel to Vietnam for mitigation investigation	Luong argues failure to fund mitigation investigation prejudiced his defense.	State contends the court reasonably refused funding but provided alternative avenues.	Trial court did not exceed discretion; denial reversed only as to related issues.
Whether admission of a sentencing videotape and related testimony was proper	Luong contends the evidence was unfairly prejudicial and improperly admitted.	State argues it had probative value and was permissible under sentencing rules.	Evidence admissible; probative value outweighed prejudicial risk; no plain error.

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) (presumption of prejudice exists only in extreme cases; voir dire deference to trial judge)
Ex parte Fowler, 574 So.2d 745 (Ala. 1990) (pretrial publicity alone does not require change of venue)
Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415 (1991) (extent of publicity determines need for individual voir dire)
Brown, 632 So.2d 14 (Ala. 1992) (pretrial publicity cases; voir dire and impartiality considerations)
Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) (broadcast confession can create presumption of prejudice)
Campa v. Angiulo, 459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir. 2006) (presumption of prejudice rebuttable by thorough voir dire)
Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1985) (premature or insufficient voir dire may fail to rebut presumption of prejudice)
Ex parte Hinton, 548 So.2d 562 (Ala. 1989) (sentencing evidence and probative value considerations in capital cases)
Wilson v. State, 480 So.2d 78 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985) (community prejudice considerations in venue decisions)