With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to media coverage, none indicated that their exposure had caused them to form fixed, unchanging opinions of the defendant’s guilt. None indicated that their exposure would interfere in any way with their ability to render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court. Based on such a record, together with the fact that a significant number of potential jurors had not formed a fixed bias against the appellant due to news reports or other information, and the fact that a one year and nine-month span between the murder and trial had lessened the publicity and its impact, we held that the trial court had not abused its discretion by denying the appellant his request for a change of venue. Id. at 316-18; see also Commonwealth v. Crews, 536 Pa. 508, 640 A.2d 395, 398-99 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, nineteen years after the murders,

A: holding no violation of substantial rights occurred during voir dire where record did not show that defendant was denied fair and impartial trial
B: holding that absence of defendants from part of voir dire discussing trial publicity with prospective jurors was error under rule 43
C: holding that even where there is inflammatory pretrial publicity an adequate coolingoff period between the publication of such material and the trial which in crews was six to eight months together with the trial courts exercise of its discretion to evaluate bias and impartiality during voir dire sufficiently supported the trial courts conclusion that pretrial publicity did not prevent the capital defendant from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury
D: holding a pretrial hearing on the waiver of counsel conducted three weeks before trial was the start of the trial stage where there were no changes between the pretrial hearing and the trial
C.