"This appears to be a clear case in which the N&R and Johnson colluded to taint Sanders on the opening day of his trial in the apparent hope of prejudicing potential jurors. It did attract the court’s attention. Deputy Attorney General Jim Coman, who is trying Sanders, informed the judge that the N&R’s coverage was inaccurate and prejudicial."I'm quite confident this will be another error by the N&R that they fail to correct.
More.
Roch, at:
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/2009/02/the_news_record_2.shtml#comments
I asked John Robinson to respond to Coman's comments in court. JR has yet to respond.
Tony Wilkins said:
John, did Deputy Attorney General Jim Coman, who is trying Officer Sanders, inform the judge that the N&R’s coverage was inaccurate and prejudicial?
I spoke to a couple of out-of-town attorneys who indicated that claiming media is prejudicial or inaccurate is fairly common and not a "big deal" or unheard of during trials. Perhaps we should consider that this ploy is often used and may simply not be terribly newsworthy.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it could be a big huge conspiracy.
Sue, tell your out of town attorney's it was the prosecutor, not the defendant's attorney and see if you get the same response.
ReplyDelete