Jury selection began Monday morning in the retrial of Martin Miller, charged with first-degree murder in the death of his wife more than 10 years ago.

A Douglas County jury convicted Miller, 56, in 2005 of first-degree murder in the July 28, 2004, death of Mary E. Miller, 46, at the family’s central Lawrence home. The Kansas Court of Appeals ruled in February 2014 that Miller should get a new trial based on errors in the jury instructions during his initial trial.

Prosecutors Mark Simpson and Andrew Bauch say Miller, a former Lawrence carpenter and Christian school leader, strangled 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. Miller’s attorney, Richard Ney, argues that Mary Miller died of natural causes.

About 100 potential jurors came to the district courthouse Monday to be questioned by attorneys. The Douglas County residents had previously filled out an extensive questionnaire about their personal and professional lives, in addition to their knowledge of Miller’s first trial and conviction.

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

Ney had previously tried and failed to have the case moved to another jurisdiction because he alleged the jury pool in Douglas County would be prejudiced against his client after a decade of publicity in the case.

Ney commissioned a study last year from Kansas University professor Thomas Beisecker of 192 potential jurors 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. 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, District Judge Paula Martin denied Ney’s request to change venues, stating that juror prejudice is a factor in each case, but that’s why the court system has voir dire, the process of jury selection.

Ney did win the right to individual voir dire, wherein each potential juror is questioned one by one, out of public view. Ney said this was necessary to allow the attorneys to “fully probe individual jurors’ prejudices and knowledge of (Miller’s) past conviction without tainting the remainder of the jury pool.”

By 2 p.m., many jurors had been excused, some for their prior knowledge of the case. Other items asked in individual voir dire were “Have you ever felt your life was threatened?” and “Have you been convicted of any sex crimes?”

At 4 p.m., roughly 75 potential jurors were sent home after a day’s worth of waiting to be called for questioning. The selection process will resume Tuesday morning.

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.

Reporter Caitlin Doornbos will be tweeting from the courthouse throughout the retrial. Follow her at www.twitter.com/CaitlinDoornbos.