Avatar feed
Responses: 4
SFC Casey O'Mally
2
2
0
In general, I find one sided gag orders to be highly prejudicial. It doesn't matter if only one side is acting a fool, preventing them from saying ANYTHING while allowing the other side to continue saying what they want in a moderated manner is wrong.

That being said, I really have no problem with gag orders. Once things make it to a certain stage (and I am not lawyer smart enough to make a good analysis of what the point should be) then neither side is allowed to talk to the public about the case. This includes (but is not limited to) prosecution announcing witnesses, or evidence, or specifics of indictments; and defense attacking evidence, attacking or announcing witnesses, or attacking prosecution.

Anything beyond simple statements of predicted outcome ("we believe we have enough evidence to convict" or "my client is innocent of all charges" or similar) can be prohibited if necessary. As long as BOTH sides are prohibited.

Smith being allowed to publicly say Trump is a bad guy who deserves to go to jail, and Trump NOT being allowed to say Smith is a bad guy who is on a witchhunt should not be allowed.

Just my opinion.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Eugene Chu
2
2
0
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CMSgt Marcus Falleaf
1
1
0
Kangaroo courts now dictate elections, speech, pronouns, gender, media and impeachments. What's next?
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close