In his motion, Mr. Aidala acknowledged that the attention surrounding Mr. Weinstein’s case — which he called “an unprecedented amount of negative publicity” — expanded well beyond the five boroughs.

“It is difficult to conceive of a similar case in recent memory that has generated more inflammatory press coverage,” he wrote.

But he suggested that because New York City was the center of the media world, holding Mr. Weinstein’s trial there would create a spectacle that would coerce prospective jurors to follow the court of public opinion.

It would be impossible, he wrote, “for Mr. Weinstein to obtain a fair and impartial jury that could come to court every day past newsstands, and the throngs of activists, celebrities and journalists” without being swayed.

Motions to change a trial’s venue are common in high-profile criminal cases that generate a swirl of coverage. Defense attorneys generally see an onslaught of media coverage as an obstacle to picking an impartial jury.

“If the publicity is heavily tilted against you in a particular jurisdiction, there’s a concern that you just can’t find those jurors or that it’s basically impossible,” said Daniel S. Medwed , a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law.

But judges in these cases typically must balance concerns over finding a neutral jury with a well-established legal precedent that cases should be tried where the crimes took place.