No. of Recommendations: 9
My understanding is that the need to protect information provided by prosecutors to defense counsel as part of discovery was already being debated between the judge, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Defense attorneys have the right to vigorously defend their client but not by creating an environment that could interfere with other witnesses or undermine the court's processes. The decision to leak these videos BEFORE the judge had a chance to hear formal arguments or make a decision seems to be a direct attempt to manipulate other witnesses and possibly help other clients by providing clarity on key elements in those statements. Other defendants could have GUESSED about the content but KNOWING is much more valuable when setting strategy.
The judge did proceed to impose a lock on these materials but at this point, damage has already been done. One defendant and counsel leaked information which can be used by supporters of the defendants in the larger public to exert additional pressure (public media, private offers, private threats) to tamper with witnesses. The lawyer involved here didn't RELEASE these video statements as part of transparency with his name on an accompanying statement describing his client's motives, he LEAKED them. Only two days later in court, when the judge expressed clear interest in identifying the leaker and preventing future leaks, did Miller publicly identify himself. If he and his client were so strongly in favor of TRANSPARENCY, leaking the videos make the court process look like a circus rather than a finely tuned machine. Any such confusion about "evidence" and "discovery" stemming from this stunt helps further erode public trust in this particular court and ALL courts.
In many of these situtations, judges appear to be bending over backwards in toleration of behavior no other defendant would attempt without immediately penalty. In this case, a request to protect this discovery information was expected by probably all parties and was in the works. Shame on Fani Willis and Judge McAffee for trying to proceed with some sense of respect for the defendants and giving them a wide berth. None of them deserve anything beyond the normal legal benefit of the doubt in any of these settings. Miller's actions appear to be a buzzer beater shot to publicize information he expected to be locked down so this "buzzer beater" shot may not be literal contempt of court, his conduct is completely contemptuous of the judge and the process.
WTH
