The judge decided in this case that both the state and the defense would have the opportunity to respond to certain kinds of press. This is one such instance.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There are bombshells that happen in court. Especially when the defense doesn't share discovery of material the way the prosecution does, and so surprises always happen. Things pop out without warning.
That's the whole point of... of prosecutorial discretion in the judicial system. It's finding a just outcome in an individual case.
You watch the Supreme Court in action on these cases, and they are a conflicted court. However, when it comes to speech issues generally, the court has been protective.
The defendant wants to hide the truth because he's generally guilty. The defense attorney's job is to make sure the jury does not arrive at that truth.
Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy.
One thing I know from personal experience, judges hate it when parties talk publicly about their cases. There are a lot of things about our criminal legal system that need to be changed, and this is just one of them. Prosecutors know how to play the press. Most defendants don't.
I think the prosecution had all the evidence in front of them to have won the case.
Court proceedings, except for certain limited situations, are open to the public. This is for the protection of the accused, to be certain to ascertain that there is a fair trial.
I don't think it's the role of the prime minister to court the press.
The role of the defense is to be an advocate for their client, regardless of whether he did it or not, within the bounds of the law.
No opposing quotes found.