Final Answer:
Arguments for holding the trial in Garden City include proximity to the incident location, potential familiarity of the jury with local nuances, and convenience for witnesses. Arguments against include potential bias or influence due to local sentiments, lack of impartiality in jury selection, and concerns over a fair trial due to the case's local impact.
Step-by-step explanation:
Holding a trial in Garden City, or any specific location, involves weighing several factors. Proponents argue that conducting the trial in Garden City might be advantageous due to its proximity to the incident site, potentially ensuring a better understanding of local circumstances among jurors.
Moreover, it might be convenient for witnesses and other involved parties. On the contrary, opponents highlight the risks of bias, especially if the case has significantly impacted the community. This could result in difficulty in selecting an impartial jury and concerns over the fairness of the trial due to local sentiments influencing the verdict.
Additionally, conducting the trial in a highly affected area might lead to concerns about potential jury intimidation or undue pressure. Hence, the decision on the trial's location involves a delicate balance between these arguments, prioritizing fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice.