2021R660 Case Update – Reginald Robertson Submits Pro Se Motion for Change of Venue

On August 18th, 2023 the Coweta County Superior Court Clerk added the following entry to the proceedings docket for Case 2021R660, The State of Georgia vs. Reginald Roderick Robertson, for crimes against Tiffany Nicole Foster in November 2020.




Aug 18th, 2023 



The motion was submitted to the court Pro Se, written by hand, and was sent to the Coweta County Superior Court Clerk via USPS and was postmarked August 15th, 2023. 

Pro Se is the term used when a party in a legal action acts on their own behalf instead of going through a legal representative like a lawyer. The term is short for the Latin “propria persona,” which translates as “for oneself.”

While Robertson is currently represented by Thomas Mondelli, a Public Defender, he has opted many times in the course of this case to petition the court without going through his lawyer.

Robertson starts the Motion by stating his request, that the transfer the proceedings to a county beyond a radius of 253 miles from Newnan, GA, and to a county with a Constitutionally composed traverse jury list.

A traverse jury, or sometimes referred to as a petit jury, is simply the legal name for a jury, normally comprised of 12 members, that is sworn in and decides the facts of a case after hearing evidence presented in court.

He then provides six (6) statements in support of his Motion. These statements follow.

Statement 1

In this statement we believe that Robertson attempts to assert that due to media coverage of Tiffany Fosters disappearance, and his being charged for her murder just 12 days before this is written, that it will be impossible to select an impartial jury not only in Coweta County, but also the counties which he names. We assume that he came up with the “253 Miles” by drawing a ring around those counties.

Statement 2

In the second statement he again speaks of media coverage, this time mentioning that the coverage has described what they believe occurred in the new charges, which he believes will prejudice a jury in regards to being able to only consider the facts of the charges in this case.

Statement 3

Continuing in a similar theme as the previous two statements, Robertson now turns to the apparent notoriety of Tiffany Foster herself. He alleges that due to the publicity she received when she went missing, and now with him being charged with her murder, that “great passion and prejudice” has been evoked within the community.

Of particular note, he makes the statement that the murder case “that has allegedly been caused by the defendant without evidence or physical proof of a murder.”  The manner in which he words this makes it sound like he’s questioning there being proof of a murder at all, not just proof of him committing the murder.

Statement 4

In statement four he singles out the fact that the community has held “gift drives” for Tiffany Foster’s three children during the holidays she’s been missing.  This seems like an odd thing to include or single out.

Statement 5

Statement five seems to be a run on sentence in which Robertson attempts to allege that coverage of the new charges, his background, and evidence that has not been before the court in the new case, would cause jurors to be prejudiced. 

Statement 6

In his sixth and final statement to the court in defense of his Motion, Robertson clearly states that he believes that to try him in Coweta County, where “the community feeling is strongly set against him,” would violate his rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury afford him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. 


He then closes the motion by stating what action he’s asking the court to take, in this case a hearing on the Motion and for the Venue to be changed.

Perjury Statment

On the bottom of the last page, Robertson includes the following notarized statement stating the above information is true, to the best of his knowledge, under the penalty of Perjury.


Robertson’s Motion seems to show a few things of interest. First, that despite his insistence at his August 7th, 2023 arraignment that he didn’t understand his rights, or the charges against him, that he in fact has a better then average understanding of legal proceedings and their associated charges. This is further evident in previous Pro Se filings by Robertson. As far back as June of 2021, just months after his arrest and incarceration, Robertson filed two Pro Se Motions, one of which was to remove his Public Defender at the time, which was successful.

The other interesting thing to note from this Motion is the fact that it shows that even having been incarcerated since April of 2021, Robertson has been able, and seemingly interested in, keeping track of the media reporting on the case. 

What’s Next

Having received the Motion, the court will decide if it’s proper in legal form. If it is, then the requested hearing will be scheduled. 

We’ll update everyone with what the court decides and any other movement in this case and the newest charges, which will probably be brought before a Grand Jury for an indictment.