District Court Judge James Broberg denied Jason Patrick Tope’s request to move his trial to another county Wednesday. The trial is set to start March 4.

Tope, 27, who is accused of three counts of methamphetamine production-related charges and breaking out of jail, asserted he would not have a fair trial because of prejudicial articles in the Albert Lea Tribune.

St. Paul attorney Frank Arend Schulte, Tope’s private attorney, submitted 11 articles published between November 2001 and January of this year to support the motion.

Schulte said the location and situation of his arrest on the night of Nov. 7, 2001 in some of the articles was reported incorrectly.

Schulte also accused other articles of associating Tope with crimes which with he has not been charged. For another article, the headline was called prejudicial.

State court rules allow a party, either the defense, prosecution or court, to ask for a change of venue, when &uot;the dissemination of potentially prejudicial material creates a reasonable likelihood that in the absence of such relief, a fair trial cannot be had.&uot;

Predjudicial material is anything that would cause potential jurors to make a judgment in advance about a defendant.

Assistant Attorney General Cheri Townsend stated in his memorandum opposing the defendant’s motion: &uot;The defendant has not supplied anything to show that the reporting has created a likelihood of prejudice.&uot;

Schulte declined to comment on the judge’s ruling denying the change of venue, which he had not received as of 8 p.m. Wednesday. Instead, he read a statement, saying, &uot;I wish to tell your readers that the person I know as Jason Tope bears no resemblance to the monster portrayed by the media.&uot; He described Tope as a likable, personable and honest person.

Schulte also said, &uot;The articles in the Albert Lea Tribune led the readers to believe Jason Tope had already been found guilty of escape. That is consistent with some wording and phraseology of the articles … Your articles are written in such a way as to presuppose the guilt of my client and would lead many readers to believe that my client has already been found guilty.&uot;