Chesterfield Walmart abduction investigation
When we’ll see more rain this week

Judge denies alleged killer Randy Taylor a change of venue

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

A Nelson County judge has denied Randy Taylor a change of venue request.

Taylor’s attorney Michael Hallahan had earlier filed a motion seeking a change of venue because he is worried Taylor won’t get a fair trial in Nelson County. He said because of all the media attention, it will be difficult to seat a fair and impartial jury.

Judge Michael Gamble said Thursday that there has not been enough inaccurate, ill-timed, or inflammatory media coverage to prompt a change in venue, CBS 6 affiliates WDBJ report.

The judge granted a motion stating that prosecutors must let the court know before mentioning any other missing persons or murder case.

Taylor is scheduled to go on trial May 1 on charges including first-degree murder and abduction with intent to defile.

Taylor, 48, was arrested Aug. 12 and initially charged with abduction in connection with Alexis’ disappearance.

Surveillance video at a Lovingston gas station captured images of Murphy, 17, on Saturday, Aug. 3. That was the last time Alexis Murphy was seen.

Taylor’s attorney told CBS 6 News in August that her disappearance might be linked to a drug deal.

He said Taylor, Alexis and an unidentified drug dealer met at Taylor’s Nelson Highway home.  After buying $60 in marijuana Taylor insisted Alexis and the drug dealer left.  Taylor said that was the last time he saw the teen.

A special grand jury brought first-degree murder charges against Taylor in January 2014.

He was indicted on First Degree Murder, First Degree Felony Murder (murder of Alexis Murphy during commission of a felony), Abduction with Intent to Defile and Grand Larceny (unrelated to Alexis Murphy case).



    • athynz

      That’s because they “got their man” in this case and flatly refuse to acknowledge that there are other possibilities – and are basing their case on circumstantial evidence and a “previous past”.

Comments are closed.