I am getting questions across a few soical media sites about the ongoing trials.
I gave some quick answers about the problems with this.
Maybe, for my next blog post, I should offer a more thoughtful and thorough answer about what a lawyer can actually say that is valuable as a trial progresses.
It will probably appeal to my geekiest readers and annoy everyone else.
Maybe I should call it: "Beware the Lawyers." (Like "beware the Ides of March" but worse.)
The point I will make is that much of the running commentary adds nothing at all of value. One former pundit I admire thinks some of it may be unethical.
I see, yes. You're talking about the appealable issue of allowing in irrelevant and highly predjucial materials.
There are limits on what a lawyer can imply or insinuate actually. More specifically, this can create an appealable issue. Whether the issue will win on appeal is a different matter because the standards of review are stacked against the appellant.
Add comment