Public officials who are under investigation now face a very serious side effect from the Internet: your case can be posted for all the world to see and hear well before any trial. As an example, check out the ongoing investigation of a Sheriff for public drunkeness that is being covered by the Statesman.

The newspaper website not only maintains a collection of the ongoing stories from the case, it posts the evidence itself: recorded phone calls and video from the stop by the patrol car.

Do you think this makes it harder or easier for us to do our jobs?

Guess you now have to ask whether a prospective juror has heard anything about the case on tv or radio, or read anything in the newspapers or on the internet. Frankly, I think it would be unlikely someone would have learned about a case only on the internet, but obviously anyone taking the time to locate and read a webpage will likely learn more about the case than through the more traditional mediums. That could be good or bad for the prosecution. Should make for some interesting hearings on motions for change of venue though.

The link in your posting is interesting-it is the newspaper equivalent of a "director's cut". Pre-internet, that case would generate a couple of small articles in the Austin paper, followed by a "me-too" story in the local weekly. Now, for those interested, the Statesman can be customized via the internet to provide much more coverage of your county.
My question is this: Is a police agency required to provide information like that in the Statesman website when there is an ongoing investigation?
If not, then the amount of early public disclosure in your sheriff's case might be unique.