(with apologies to a certain FoxNews personality for use of the title ...)

The article: "Stage-Managing a Celebrity Defense"

The quote, by a past president of the Los Angeles Criminal Bar Assn: "Whether by client or counsel, 'spin' for its own sake doesn't serve the defendant and puts the defense lawyer in peril. It should be used only for strategic or tactical advantage in influencing the prospective jury pool."

Q: This was discussed in passing on another post, but with all the celebrity trials on the horizon, how do those in the white hats combat such poisoning of the well?

[This message was edited by Shannon Edmonds on 02-02-04 at .]

For what it's worth, my trial practice professor in law school was a judge in Malibu (that's where all the good celebrity trials go down) and he never sentenced any of them to jail. He always said they were unfairly exploited and attacked by the media. He placed Charlie Sheen in a private drug treatment center, Tommy Lee was fined, and Nick Nolte was free before the case even got to his court. At least Wynonna got probation in Beverly Hills, but not only are prosecuotrs fighting the best attorneys money can buy, they are fighting judges who feel sorry for the defendants.

Personally, I would like to know how "spin for it's own sake" puts the lawyer in peril but spin for the express purpose of influencing the jury pool does not. Best I recall, influencing the jury pool is exactly the reason why we aren't supposed to use the media for "spin". If this is the way the defense wants to play the game then let's get rid of all the rules and start letting both sides talk freely about our cases in the media before trial. If neither side is bound by the rules of ethics on this issue then we win the spin every time because let's face it, we usually have a better case than they do or we wouldn't be prosecuting the case.