Justice system credibility
 

Whenever there is a high-profile case, where someone is charged with murder, should the court allow a witness for the prosecution to hold a news conference to display their grief, thereby eliciting public sympathy? Whether intentional or not, it ends up, in effect, being a rally in support of the prosecution.

When the trial comes up, they will go through the motions of trying to find an untainted, unbiased jury. I believe it would be much easier, and more certain, to find an unbiased jury if the court would just put a ban on media interviews and or conferences. Otherwise, in my opinion, it's like the prosecution is attempting to stack the deck by allowing this public display.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on this subject.

Note: This question came to mind after seeing a picture in the Daily Sun of the grieving widow of Chad Oulson who was shot and killed by a retired police captain.

I do not like to express my opinion on this forum but I am making an exception in this situation. I sincerely hope our right to the freedom of speech is never tampered with. If the family of victims of crimes want to express their grief via the media, so be it.

The family of the accused is also free to speak out. It's called free speech. There is also freedom of the press to report this.

Occasionally, exceptions are made as when the federal prosecutor in NJ asked the mayor of Hoboken to not conduct any more interviews while the case is being investigated.

No cases got more publicity than the Casey Anthony and Trayvon Martin murder cases, and yet Anthony and George Zimmerman were able to get fair jury trials.

I'm fully aware of our right to freedom of speech. However, I also seem to recall that courts can impose restrictions on speech if they see the need. Just wondering why they don't see the need, when picking a jury becomes so difficult.

What is the per hour cost, to taxpayers, of picking a jury? And the time spent, perhaps days, may keep someone from getting a speedy trial.

How far would you go? How about the second cousin of the victim? How about his second grade teacher? It has been said that everyone in the world is connected by 6 degrees of separation.

"No cases got more publicity than the Casey Anthony and Trayvon Martin murder cases, and yet Anthony and George Zimmerman were able to get fair jury trials."

I think the poster forgot about OJ Simpson's murder trial. Hey, that was a fair trial, too, with OJ being found not guilty just like Casey Anthony was not guilty and George Zimmy was not guilty.

The retired police captain did his killing in front of plenty of witnesses and was fearing for his life because he got some popcorn tossed at him. Yep, we should feel sorry for this nut case police bully.

None of the above. There should be a "gag order", in my opinion.

Both families (victim and perp) usually speak to cameras or press.

Zimmy's wife, brother, and father talked a lot just as did Trayvon's parents and supporters.

Have not heard anything from the police bully's wife or family - they are probably just ashamed of him.

And yet, well paid lawyers don't give up trying to influence public opinion by putting their clients on public display while their grief is still fresh. Who paid for the lawyer that was at the press conference? Among other things, a "gag order" would protect grieving widows and others from ambitious lawyers.

" Who paid for the lawyer that was at the press conference?"

I am sure the lawyer in on a contingency fee. He will collect about 1/3 of any settlement granted to the victim's family. In case of no settlement, no fee. Lawyers know that does not happen too often or they would not accept the client.

The retired police captain probably will have to pay out of his pocket for a lawyer or get a public defender if he has no money. Maybe the NRA will bring in one of their lawyers - who knows?