Aw, jeez, don't go and get me siding with William Jefferson, DemocRAT of Louisiana. I wish the phrase was "the public's right to know at the appropriate time." The openness of our court system is important and the press has a crucial role to play in that regard. However, the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of our Constitutional rights and just because a supposed majority of us want to be titillated with the details before the trial takes place, it doesn't mean that a judge can decide that our individual rights are less important than "collective" rights. See where I'm going with that? Does the phrase "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good" ring a bell? If it was the prosecution objecting I would be a lot more troubled with keeping it secret before the trial. Further, I'd hate for this act of media voyeurism result in William Jefferson, democRAT of Louisiana, getting any kind of break when another judge decides that his rights WERE violated.
All valid points. I'd argue that in this case, an elected representative of the people should have LESS leeway and should have MORE scrutiny than a private individual.
We know the basics, and the man is innocent until proven guilty. Nevertheless, he swore an oath that we did not, he is charged with responsibilities of governance that we are not. The public has a right to know the allegations and evidence against him because in this case it is in the public interest.
Being cynical I tend to agree with the other poster that there is a political interest too - some people want this out and done away with quickly since elections are coming. They don't want a scandal running during the campaign.