st1

The conduct of this trial during the brief time the feed was open today has me, confused, annoyed and yes, angry. It started out with the defense lawyer mentioning the name of Jane Doe several times. Then the defense expert witness mentioned the real name of Jane Doe over and over again at least a dozen times. The state never objected.

The state then compounded the error by doing the exact same thing. Her name was mentioned so many times, it is likely that anyone viewing the stream has now memorized her name.

As a trial junkie, I have seen many of these kinds of trials where the names of victims, witnesses and even defendants have been redacted from the public and all parties instructed by the court to keep these names confidential. That seems not to have happened in this trial. For weeks bloggers have been arguing with each other over the release of Jane Doe’s real name. There have been bitter comments thrown around by parties on all sides. I, for one, admit that I have critized a blogger for her unintended release of Jane Doe’s real name.

My criticism now seems to have been misplaced since the Ohio court system has allowed her name to become public without objection.

What is the point of having a Jane Doe designation if the court is going to blow it in such a blatant manner?

Stay tuned

MURT

Advertisements