Yes, I think she can get a fair trial in her area. Lawyers are generally not stupid. There are seminars dedicated solely to voir dire, the process of selecting a jury. Both sides will have the opportunity to get rid of potential jurors that could be biased one way or the other. I don't know that it is a perfect system because juries are often made up of people who do not read, do not keep apprised of the news and I don't think that lends itself to critical thinking abilities. Nevertheless, it often seems to work. The defense will make sure to screen for people who have made their minds up as to casey's guilt. They have many ways to do so, from direct questions to indirect questions that may uncover a hidden mindset, to questions about the radio programs, television programs and internet sites the potential jurors frequent. Lawyers even study body language, voice patterns, mode of dress, etc, in an effort to determine whether a potential juror is baised or not. They take into account demographics, personal histories, etc. And, I think the court system adequately impresses upon jurors the gravity of the situation. Most jurors are honest. I know that if I was called I would let the lawyers know of my belief and gut that casey is guilty. However, I would also state that I would be willing to look at only the evidence presented to determine her guilt or innocence. I'm 99.9% sure I would get booted.