The retrial of a Lawrence man convicted in 2005 of murdering his wife will take place in Douglas County despite his request for a change of venue, District Judge Paula Martin has ruled.

A Douglas County jury convicted Martin Miller in 2005 of first-degree murder in the July 28, 2004, death of his wife, Mary E. Miller, 46, at the family’s central Lawrence home. Miller’s murder conviction was overturned in February, when the Kansas Supreme Court said that the written jury instruction Martin gave jurors had been in error.

Prosecutors accused Miller, a former Lawrence carpenter and Christian school leader, of strangling his wife in her sleep because he had been having an affair with another woman and he wanted to collect $300,000 in life insurance money.

Martin Miller is led away after being convicted of his wife's murder in Judge Paula Martin's courtroom.

In 2012, the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled that Miller should get a new trial based on errors in the jury instructions during his initial trial.

For months, Miller’s defense attorney Richard Ney had been trying to have the case moved to another jurisdiction.

In September, Ney asked Martin to disqualify the Douglas County District Attorney’s Office after it was revealed that Miller’s son Matthew Miller, 22, had been living with senior assistant district attorney Eve Kemple’s son in her home. Martin denied that request, as Kemple is not involved in prosecuting Miller’s murder case.

Ney challenged Martin’s decision, asking the Kansas Supreme Court to order Martin to disqualify the local district attorney’s office, but the state court declined to do so in December. The court’s reasoning regarding Ney’s request was not made clear in the order, which simply states that it was “considered by the court and denied.”

After the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision, the case went forward again in Douglas County District Court, where Ney argued that Miller’s case should receive a change of venue because a Douglas County jury would be prejudiced following a decade of publicity in the case.

Ney commissioned a study of 192 potential jurors by Kansas University professor Thomas Beisecker that Ney said showed a Douglas County jury would not be impartial.

When Beisecker asked survey takers about their knowledge of the crime, 63 percent said they had heard of the case before. Of the 121 who said they had heard of the crime, 85 people, or about 70 percent, said they thought Miller was “definitely” or “probably” guilty. Less than 3 percent thought he was not guilty and about 26 percent said they were unsure.

Additionally, when asked if they knew why the case had been reversed, many survey respondents “expressed the opinion that his conviction had been overturned due to a legal technicality,” Ney said.

Ney said in court documents that the survey results proved that Douglas County would be an unfair location for Miller’s retrial.

“These potential jurors will come to the table not with a belief that the defendant is ‘clothed with a presumption of innocence,'” Ney said. “Rather, they come with an opinion that he is actually guilty and his retrial is simply a formality.”

Ultimately, Martin denied Ney’s request to change venues, stating, “the defendant has established that prejudice exists in the community not as a demonstrable reality but only as a matter of speculation.”

Martin said juror prejudice is a factor in each case, but that’s why the court system has voir dire, the process of jury selection.

Martin Miller has been out of jail since posting a $250,000 bond in April. During a March court appearance, Miller’s attorney said Miller would arrange to live with his wife, Laura Cuthbertson, and her father at a home in Paola. Miller and Cuthbertson married while Miller was in prison in 2006.

Miller’s trial is set for March 20.