Six days before jury selection is set to begin, Matthew Farwell has asked the federal judge in Boston, again, to move his trial out of Massachusetts. The former Stoughton police officer, charged in the 2021 death of Sandra Birchmore, filed a supplemental motion to transfer venue on Monday, September 28, 2026, arguing that coverage by the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald and local television has made a fair trial in this district impossible.
Chief Judge Denise J. Casper already said no once, on January 23, 2026. The government opposes the new request. Here is what the filing says, what the law requires, and why the answer is still likely to be no.
What Farwell filed
The filing is Document 287 in United States v. Farwell, No. 1:24-cr-10259-DJC, signed by Assistant Federal Public Defenders Kimberly C. Stevens and Joanne M. Daley. We read it in full. It asks the court to “transfer venue to a jurisdiction not saturated with coverage from the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and the Boston area television stations.” It does not name a specific district.
The motion builds on the court’s own words. In denying the first motion, Casper wrote that “future press coverage of these proceedings, without any indicia of prejudice in the substance of the coverage itself, would not be sufficient to establish a presumption.” The defense says the coverage since then contains exactly those indicia. It counts 33 additional Globe stories generating at least 867 public comments and 20 additional Herald articles since January, and attaches them as exhibits. Examples it quotes:
- An April 9, 2026 Globe piece that said “plenty of monsters have medals” and ended, “Sandra Birchmore won’t have any medals to protect her.”
- Globe reports repeating the government’s claim that Farwell was in Birchmore’s apartment when her phone stopped moving, which the defense calls “an unsubstantiated and contested claim.”
- An April 2026 Herald article referring to the Norfolk District Attorney as “Meatball” and to “Keystone Kops.”
- Reader comments such as “Slam dunk.”
It also incorporates arguments in two sealed filings, including a sealed motion filed September 18 “concerning certain courthouse and courtroom procedures.”
The legal standard
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(a) says the court “must transfer the proceeding” if it “is satisfied that so great a prejudice against the defendant exists in the transferring district that the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there.”
That sounds mandatory, and in a sense it is. The difficulty is the threshold. In Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), the Enron case tried in Houston, the Supreme Court said that “a presumption of prejudice, our decisions indicate, attends only the extreme case.” Heavy coverage, even hostile coverage, is not enough on its own. The usual answer is careful jury selection: questionnaires and individual questioning to find jurors who can set aside what they have read.
The Boston precedent that matters most
The closest comparison is the Boston Marathon bombing case. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev asked to move his trial out of Boston, the district court said no, and he asked the First Circuit to order a transfer. In In re Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2015), the court refused. It noted that his own polling showed that in his preferred venue, Washington, D.C., “96.5% of survey respondents had heard of the bombings.” He was tried in Boston.
If a trial for a terrorist attack on the city’s most famous public event could be held in Boston, a court is unlikely to find that coverage of the Birchmore case, however intense, has made a Boston jury impossible. The Farwell defense’s strongest point is not volume but tone: that the coverage and commentary treat his guilt as settled. That argument usually goes to how the jury is selected, not where.
Why file now?
Filing a supplement just before jury selection puts the full record of post-January coverage in front of the court and on the record for any appeal. Even if the motion is denied, it preserves the issue, and it may shape how the judge conducts jury selection.
What happens next
- A ruling before October 5. Casper can decide on the papers.
- Jury selection October 5, in the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston, unless something changes.
- The questionnaire and voir dire. If the motion is denied, the fight moves to jury selection, where the defense will try to screen out jurors who have formed opinions.
Farwell has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent.
Frequently asked questions
Is Matthew Farwell’s trial being moved out of Massachusetts?
Not as of September 29, 2026. His lawyers filed a supplemental motion to transfer venue on September 28. Chief Judge Denise Casper denied his first venue motion on January 23, 2026, and the government opposes the new one.
When does the Farwell trial start?
Jury selection is scheduled for October 5, 2026, in federal court in Boston.
What is the standard for moving a federal trial because of publicity?
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(a) requires transfer if prejudice in the district is so great that the defendant cannot get a fair trial there. The Supreme Court said in Skilling v. United States (2010) that a presumption of prejudice attends only the extreme case.
Was the Boston Marathon bombing trial moved?
No. In In re Tsarnaev (1st Cir. 2015), the appeals court refused to order a transfer, noting that 96.5% of people surveyed in Washington, D.C. had heard of the bombings. The trial was held in Boston.
Sources: Supplement to Motion to Transfer Venue, United States v. Farwell, No. 1:24-cr-10259-DJC, Doc. 287 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 28, 2026), read in full; the exhibits and sealed filings were not reviewed. WHDH and Boston 25 News reported the filing September 28, 2026. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21 read at law.cornell.edu. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), and In re Tsarnaev, 780 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2015), verified and read. General information about the law, not legal advice.