While this doesn't hurt him much, it can easily lead to great embarrassment and potential destruction of reputation for those men.
I can store my entire net worth in a pile of gold on the sidewalk in front of my house.
When it gets stolen, would you find it in your heart to pity me? If the police are less than enthused at taking a report, would the outrage be forthcoming?
Or would you dismiss me as a total, 100%, freakin' idiot?
Think, my man, think! Emailing private details of you to random strangers is nothing other than completely stupid. It's true! Really!
I can't believe people are arguing this.
If, while minding your own business, you are quietly walking down the street to the inconvenience store, but still manage to get raped, then you'll have my complete 100% sympathy. I would expect a search, prosecution and stiff sentence for the perpetrator.
However, if you choose to walk to the store naked from the waist up, with bull-horn in hand, screaming "I'M LOOKING FOR SOME HOT SEX RIGHT NOW! NO REASONABLE OFFERS REFUSED! COME AND GET IT!!", and are then raped, I'm afraid you'll find no sympathy from me. Yes, a vicious crime was committed and all, but, Christ, what the hell were you expecting?
To lock this sort of thinking to the current situation, Mr. Razor: people who email -- email! -- pictures of themselves, and commentary, to what amounts to a random stranger are idiots of the highest(lowest?) order, and get exactly what is coming their way. I'm truly sorry you are unable to comprehend this kind of logic -- some call it "common sense" -- but, fortunately, that is your problem, not mine.
A witness, W2 listens to previous testimony by W1, and though you as the attorney are counting on the variation of the events by W2, W2 hears W1 and decides to revise her version of events to match more closely. The case is blown. Or you have a hostile witness who does not actually want to testify, who then arranges to contradict earlier testimony, equally blowing the case based on knowledge they're not supposed to have.
First, is it a problem in the first place? When W2 hears W1's testimony, maybe it will trigger more accurate testimony on his part.
But assuming it is a problem, why not:
1. W1 and W2 are to testify on the same day.
2. if (1) is logistically impossible, W1 and W2 are sequestered at The Ritz, and paid handsomely for the inconvenience
3. W1 and W2 submit written testimony in advance; query them in open court only if necessary (this is essentially what happens today),
But these (and others) are just band-aids, aren't they? They do not address the far deeper problem: that the current justice system places far too much weight on eye witness testimony. In the current instance, if mere public exposure can work to make such evidence worthless -- "case is blown" -- well, just how good is that evidence in the first place?
Contrast this to physical evidence like fingerprints, DNA, contents of disk drives, etc.
Basically, Mr. Matticus, you need to begin questioning the basis of your beloved legal system. Is the structure flawed? Are the sacred Federal Rules of Civil Procedure designed to cover up the flaws ("no broadcasting!"), or actually fix them?
You neglect entirely the fact that the bulk of public involvement with the broadcast would be presented through the media,
I guess it could, but you are the only one saying it would.
An order not enforceable when the level and quantity of media presentation rises to this level.
But you again ignore the fact that the jurors are present in the room: they have no need to watch the broadcast.
Trust me when I say you never know what a witness is going to say on the stand.
Assuming you are a lawyer, why should I trust you about anything? In this case, if you have any doubts about what a witness might say, you simply won't call them. Any deviations from what they said before trial and what they say on the stand, you do as you are doing to me: you attack, you misrepresent, you dismiss, whatever it takes to render the testimony moot to both sides.
A truly bizarre contention when you consider that the transcripts are all already available.
For stiff fees, of course. But let's not get all filthy with money now, eh?
You're alleging an absolutely ludicrous conspiracy [...]
Reading comprehension problems, have you? I allege that
1. the system is deeply flawed,
2. easy and widespread access to the system would make this transparently obvious (if it isn't already),
3. and that permitting the exposure of said flaws is not in the system's interest
I can only note that your dismissive babble about "conspiracy" neatly clicks with item (3). It's only a "conspiracy" in the sense that corporations "conspire" to make money, people "conspire" to breath air, and dogs "conspire" to urinate on fire hydrants.
Transcripts are many times faster to read than listening to dozens to hundreds of hours of trial proceedings.
It's call an "index". You might want to google up the idea. Some day in the glorious future the justice system will be dragged into the 18th century.