Petitioner was convicted for the murder-kidnaping of the son of a prominent local banking family. Pretrial publicity was extensive. All members of the jury had read or heard of the murder-kidnaping. Some jurors knew petitioner's family and some were acquainted with the victim's family. Six members admitted that they had formed opinions concerning the case. I do not doubt that their representations that they could set aside their opinions and listen to the evidence were sincere. But under the totality of the circumstances, I can only conclude that petitioner Hale, like the petitioner in Brecheen, was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial and to impartial sentencing because of Oklahoma's strong presumption against venue changes.