___________UPDATE____________
I apparently erred. Sakry - ABC Newspapers posted an updated report.
Sakry describes the latest amended complaint and the prosecutorial thinking underlying the change. Moreover, with the Anoka County Attorney's Office doing an initial hand-off to Isanti County, I misunderstood that the trial site stayed unchanged, and trial remains scheduled in Anoka County. Sakry reported in the latest post:
Elvig’s criminal trial was scheduled to begin in Anoka County District Court March 25 with Judge Spencer J. Sokolowski preceding, but was rescheduled for April 15 after Crumb’s office received additional evidence.
According to [prosecutor Susan] Crumb, her office was given the [new] evidence the afternoon of March 22 while preparing a witness for testimony [...]
This is the third continuance for the trial.
[...] The U.S. Department of Labor Employee Benefits and Security (EBSA) investigated Elvig for allegedly misappropriating employee contributions to the firm’s 401(k) profit sharing plan, group health care and dental plans and 401(k) loan repayments.
The EBSA investigators allege Elvig kept the contributions in E-Street’s general operating account and used it to pay business expenses, such as payroll, instead of applying it to the three employee plans for up to 15 employees.
[Emphasis added.] A juror pool will be available where, hopefully, a panel can be chosen of those unfamiliar with reporting of the case, who will be free of any bias that way, and not knowing Elvig or other potential witnesses. It seems that narrowing the pool that way, and calling jurors only from voter rolls, promises to exclude a number of possible jurors (voters presumably being familiar with office holders and political status). Those constraints might lead to an unusual jury composition.
Finally, it is unclear from reporting that it will be a jury trial and not a bench trial. However, trials of cases charging criminal liability most frequently are jury trials. Juries traditionally evolved so that one's peers, and not officials of the state, might, as a safeguard of charged individuals, pass judgement - a step dating, if my recollection serves me, at least indirectly to the Magna Carta where crown powers were constrained by will of the noblemen and consent of the crown; with the changes in government reduced to a key writing. That precept, having a writing protective of rights against government power, of course is echoed in our Bill of Rights, and our Constitution defining a balance of powers between federal and state exercise and control.
Sakry reported more in the new post beyond what has been quoted; again, this link.