Douglas Bradford: April 2010 Archives

We often hear lawyers tell reporters they don't want to "try the case in the press" as a reason for not speaking to them. I've never really been sure what that means since lawyers are supposed to be adept at screening jurors for potential bias and triers of the fact are precluded from basing decisions on anything other than what is presented in the courtroom as evidence. Most the time, anyway, the lawyers who are making that claim are the ones who are calling reporters and secretly slipping them tips and documents.

Because, let's be honest, for most attorneys? It's all about the public. The public only knows what's going on in the courtroom because reporters are the only ones who bother to show up and see what's going on. And while attorneys will tell you until they're blue in the face that they are fighting for justice, the truth is, many are really fighting for their next paycheck or accolades from their superiors or high fives from their colleagues. They need reporters to get their names and successes out. We need them to make our stories fair, accurate and balanced. It is a mutually beneficial relationship.

When attorneys stand up in court and tell a judge that their opposition is posturing for the media, it creates a dangerous situation. Judges are vigilante about ensuring the integrity of the judicial process and will do whatever is necessary to protect it from any perceived danger - real or not. Often, the result of this is the issuance of a sealing or gag order from the judge.

Such orders were put in place to keep information out of the public that, if released, would be detrimental to a party. For example, revealing what a witness to a dangerous crime said could jeopardize their safety or releasing trade secrets of a corporation would give competitors an unfair advantage. They are NOT, however, supposed to be used to keep information out of the public eye just because either side doesn't like what that information is.