Replies

“I believe that there is enough of a talk radio social media presence out here, that the ‘official’ media can’t silence the prosecution.”

I believe the prosecution is legally restricted in what they can say. The idea is to try the accused in a court of law, not in the public which could easily lead to lynching. You might recall that Zimmerman’s prosecutor said that he was guilty even after he was acquitted. (I suspect that she’ll be censured for that, if not disbarred.)Also recall that the county prosecutor decided there was insufficient evidence to bring Zimmerman to trial. His prosecution was political. Would we voluntarily allow a political lynching by trying the case in the press and allow the prosecution to get-the-word out so that the accused can’t defend themselves? Instead of attorneys everybody would hire publicists.

The public should only be advised of what the court has found, not be an active participant. (Oh, think of all the idiot neighbors you’ve known who would yell “burn the witch!”)

Yes, the president has tainted every case he has mentioned. It is highly improper for any authority figure to ever comment on any case. When a general (or the president) publically comments on a military criminal case it so damages the prosecution that the case can be seriously damaged, despite the evidence. Any comment by authority can prejudice the jury pool and arguably affect the judgment. It should never happen.

Suppose you’re accused of some heinous crime. The government goes to the press and denounces you saying, “They know guilty, but can’t prove it.” The president says that the police acted stupidly and your alleged victim could have been his child. You don’t have the ability to fight the damage done to your position.

I believe that there is enough of a talk radio social media presence out here, that the ‘official’ media can’t silence the prosecution.

I believe the prosecution is legally restricted in what they can say. The idea is to try the accused in a court of law, not in the public which could easily lead to lynching. You might recall that Zimmerman’s prosecutor said that he was guilty even after he was acquitted. (I suspect that she’ll be censured for that, if not disbarred.) Also recall that the county prosecutor decided there was insufficient evidence to bring Zimmerman to trial. His prosecution was political. Would we voluntarily allow a political lynching by trying the case in the press and allow the prosecution to get-the-word out so that the accused can’t defend themselves? Instead of attorneys everybody would hire publicists.

I don't believe I advocated the defendent be tried in public. I merely said the prosecution should be able to list what their suspicions were, and explain they hoped to prove them in court. I did not say I approved of definitive prejudicial charges of guilt. I also didn't say I would ever agree with a representative of the court saying the verdict was unjust. I fully approve of the charges brought against the original prosecuting attorney in this case. I would agree with you that the current one should be dealt with too, for his after trial comments.

The public should only be advised of what the court has found, not be an active participant. Oh, think of all the idiot neighbors you’ve known who would yell “burn the witch!”

Idiot neighbors will do all sorts of things. We know they're idiots. We discount most of what they say.

Yes, the president has tainted every case he has mentioned. It is highly improper for any authority figure to ever comment on any case. When a general (or the president) publically comments on a military criminal case it so damages the prosecution that the case can be seriously damaged, despite the evidence. Any comment by authority can prejudice the jury pool and arguably affect the judgment. It should never happen.

I completely agree with your comments addressing this. I do not view the president's comments to be even remotely appropriate. It just goes to show how completely out of touch he and his advisors are. They are completely ignorant of most acceptable standards for a public official.

On the other hand, the prosecuting attorney represents the public in court. The public should be able to hear what the case consists of from the prosecuting attorney. "This is what we suspect. We will be trying to prove it in court."

Suppose you’re accused of some heinous crime. The government goes to the press and denounces you saying, “They know you're guilty, but can’t prove it.” The president says that the police acted stupidly and your alleged victim could have been his child. You don’t have the ability to fight the damage done to your position.

I don't advocate for either of these things to take place.

I do think it's reasoned to have the prosecuting attorney state what they suspect. I still say he/she should also state they will be trying to prove this in court. That makes it clear, it is only their view, not the only possible view.

As for an elected official commenting on any legal matter, it's just totally unacceptable. It's tantamount to that official forcing his testimoney into court. And even if he were in court, he couldn't say what his personal opinion was, which they are including in their public statements. It's totally wrong on at least two levels.