There's been a ton of publicity about the Steve Bannon arrest and charges. The prosecution has issued its press releases and even held a press conference. DOJ is a media machine these days. It wasn't always like that. But heaven-forbid that a defendant try to respond to the press...
Bannon's co-defendant called the case a witch hunt and DOJ has filed a letter complaining to the judge that the defendants are making extra-judicial statements which may taint the jury pool. DOJ had the chutzpah to cite to Sheppard v. Maxwell, F. Lee Bailey's Supreme Court case which found that the defendant (Sam Sheppard, a/k/a the Fugitive) could not get a fair trial with all of the publicity surrounding his trial.
If DOJ is going to speak to the press, then defendants should be permitted to respond.
3 comments:
When can we look for your next oped in THE HILL re the D.C. Cir. en banc opinion that upholds the rule of law and precedent?
dc cir opinion on flynn:
Panel opinion: mandamus because Sullivan is batshit crazy
Majority en banc opinion: No mandamus because Sullivan has promised he'll stop acting batshit crazy
You forget the part where the court granted “en banc” hearing based on petition from a non-party, then refused to disqualify the Judge for impartiality under Rule 455(a). The court subsequently writes on the published opinion that en banc could’ve been granted based on a member petition that just wasn't filed.
Post a Comment