As jury selection continues for the trial of Tamir Hamilton, accused in the September 2006 murder of Sparks resident 16-year old Holly Quick, there are concerns whether Hamilton will be able to get a fair trial in Washoe County.

There are a number of reasons for the skepticism. Hamilton is a 28-year-old black male, the Washoe County District Attorney's office has asked for the death penalty and the case has received considerable media attention.

"I am deeply concerned about the publicity," said Dr. Richard Siegel, retired University of Nevada, Reno political science professor and currently the state president of the American Civil Liberties Union. "Any publicity is going to increase the possibility that there is bias."

According to Maize Pusich, the chief public defender in the case, the original jury pool was almost 200 people. Potential jurors are being asked to fill out a 17-item questionnaire. The DA's office and the Public Defender's office have been using the answers to do some preliminary exclusion. On Monday, final jury selection will be taking place, with Judge Connie Steinheimer, the defense and the prosecution verbally questioning approximately 146 remaining potential jurors.

Questions on the preliminary screening questionnaire address the publicity, race and death penalty issues, asking potential jurors if they can remain unbiased even if they have been exposed to publicity, their beliefs concerning blacks and crime and their beliefs about the death penalty.

The questionnaire asks if potential jurors have had any exposure to media coverage of the case and whether this coverage will bias potential jurors, even if they claim they can fairly make decisions based only on what they hear in the courtroom.

"It would be difficult to get a jury (in Washoe County) not familiar with the case," said attorney Jeff Blanck, legal redress chair for the Reno/Sparks NAACP.

But Deputy District Attorney Luke Prengaman thinks that the judge currently has a sufficiently large pool to draw from.

"I think most jurors are pretty fair minded," Prengaman said, “and able to put aside what they have heard in the media.”

Blanck said he is also concerned that race may affect Hamilton's ability to get a fair trial.

"It would be something I would watch, based on the demographics here," he said.

The defense will be going for a jury selection that has more in common with the defendant, which could be hard to get in a small community.

Blanck said that for a better chance at a fair trial, any venue change should be one that has demographics that would give Hamilton a better chance at a more diverse jury, such as Clark County. Pregaman, however, said he does not believe race plays a part in the case.

During a plea hearing last month, Steinheimer rejected a request by the defense to exclude the death penalty. Answers to questions aiming at a potential juror's philosophy about the death penalty will also be another tool used by both sides.

“(A potential juror) has to always be able to consider a range of sentences," said Chief Deputy Public Defender Ryan Sullivan, who is also working on the Hamilton case. Thus, he said, it is likely that the defense would ask to exclude potential jurors responding they would always impose the death penalty.

According to Prengaman, the state is seeking people who say that despite their philosophy, they can consider the death penalty an option.

Pusich said that after the jury selection process is complete, the Public Defender's office could seek a change of venue. The DA's office is absolutely going to fight to keep it here, she said, by trying to establish that there is a sufficient number of fair jurors.

But a change of venue is hard to get. The defense must establish that it can't get an impartial jury. In recent years, there have been only two requests for a change of venue granted. One was for the Darren Mack case (which was eventually returned to Reno) and the other for the 1999 wild horses shooting case in Virginia City.

It is up to the court to decide what to do, Pusich said. Twelve jurors and four alternates will hear the case. If enough jurors cannot be found, another panel of potential jurors could be called in.