- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Should attorneys be allowed to give interviews and press conferences regarding a pending criminal trial?
Disclaimer #1: For the purposes of this question, all are included... prosecutors, police/investigators, defense attorneys, expert witnesses, etc. I am going to leave victims and/or victim's family members & friends out of the question, as they are not part of the official process, and not expected to be unbiased to begin with.
Disclaimer #2: This question is not as much about how things are done right now, and any current legal standards, but rather how things *should be* done. Maybe now is better, but maybe not.
We see this a lot. The current hot topic is the Steven Avery case(s), but it happens all the time everywhere. Prior to a trial, especially in high profile cases, the prosecution will hold press conferences and lay out their case. During the trial they will often hold daily press conferences and opine on the day's proceedings. Defense attorneys often do the exact same thing, albeit in something of a more defensive posture.
Should they be allowed to do this as a matter of free speech, or is the interests of fairness and objectivity an overriding factor that we should prohibit them from doing so? Many people feel that the purpose of doing this isn't for some noble concept of upholding the public's right to know, but rather to unduly influence the outcome in their favor. In other words, it's about winning, not truth and/or justice.
Note: I am not suggesting a media "gag order". The press would be free to report on anything that was said or done inside the court room during the trial, they just would not be spoon-fed information or get to ask questions of the participants until after the trial is over. A potential downside would be media rumor-mongering and relying heavily on "unnamed inside sources", so it's not perfect, but what we have now certainly doesn't work very well, either. It'd be a matter of degree and seeking the best possible option to help ensure legal objectivity.
Pros? Cons? Thoughts?
Disclaimer #1: For the purposes of this question, all are included... prosecutors, police/investigators, defense attorneys, expert witnesses, etc. I am going to leave victims and/or victim's family members & friends out of the question, as they are not part of the official process, and not expected to be unbiased to begin with.
Disclaimer #2: This question is not as much about how things are done right now, and any current legal standards, but rather how things *should be* done. Maybe now is better, but maybe not.
We see this a lot. The current hot topic is the Steven Avery case(s), but it happens all the time everywhere. Prior to a trial, especially in high profile cases, the prosecution will hold press conferences and lay out their case. During the trial they will often hold daily press conferences and opine on the day's proceedings. Defense attorneys often do the exact same thing, albeit in something of a more defensive posture.
Should they be allowed to do this as a matter of free speech, or is the interests of fairness and objectivity an overriding factor that we should prohibit them from doing so? Many people feel that the purpose of doing this isn't for some noble concept of upholding the public's right to know, but rather to unduly influence the outcome in their favor. In other words, it's about winning, not truth and/or justice.
Note: I am not suggesting a media "gag order". The press would be free to report on anything that was said or done inside the court room during the trial, they just would not be spoon-fed information or get to ask questions of the participants until after the trial is over. A potential downside would be media rumor-mongering and relying heavily on "unnamed inside sources", so it's not perfect, but what we have now certainly doesn't work very well, either. It'd be a matter of degree and seeking the best possible option to help ensure legal objectivity.
Pros? Cons? Thoughts?
