Replies

As a lawyer, the SA is responsible for the proper supervision of all his underlings under the Bar Rules. If a leak from his press secretary or another attorney is jeopordizing the administration of justice, the SA is responsible. If an ethics complain exits they have show how his conduct was in fact complaint in the face of such conduct.

It is not to through out the case because we currently have no case. It may be enough to have the case moved out of palm beach. The question them becomes do them move north, Bush Country or South, Gorezone. For any hope of recovering credibility they would have to go north. Thus they will go south.

The SA office is just like one big law firm, if one attorney screws up, the whole firm pays the price.

A case that is moved is actually tried by the same office, just in a new court with a different jury pool.

No judge is going to allow settlement negotiations into evidence in the absence of some form of illegal (not confused with unethical) behavior at issue. A jury will never see the letters in a trial. This case simple. The system is designed in a manner that puts this matter in drug court diversion program. It has only been the SA trying to "game" the system.

The leaks, besides being an ethics violation, become part of a demonstration of corrupt behavior. Behavior corrupted by a vendetta style prosecution.

Public corruption is very much frowned on. FL legislature just upped the penalties for criminal corruption. If the SA is sanctioned by the Bar, or faces corruption charges the case is gone as a practical matter.

So basically you're OK with the outcome that Rush gets off because someone in the SA's office was chomping at the bit and leaked.
I mean these leaked negotiations were REAL negotiations, no?
Or do you say: Rush really got lucky that these guys couldn't shut their mouths, but he still may have broken the law and he's that much less a man for it. Which is to say that they MAY have had a case but now he's going to get off scott-free.