In People v. DeLisle, 202 Mich App 658, 668; 509 NW2d 885 (1993), almost one-third of the panel of potential jurors were excused because of a bias against the defendant. The Court, however, determined that the defendant's trial was "fundamentally fair and held before a panel of impartial jurors." Id. at 669. Our Supreme Court in Jendrzejweski, supra, concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for change of venue, stating: Twenty-eight persons were excused for lack of impartiality or approximately twenty-five percent of the entire jury pool. We find no case in which any court in the country has assumed from such a statistic that the jurors seated, all of whom disclaimed partiality, were presumptively prejudiced against the defendant. . . . We decline to find that community sentiment impeached the indifference of jurors who displayed no animus of their own. Id. at 514.