Our legal system is designed as an "Innocence Presumed" institution for a very good reason. A person is either proven guilty or their innocence is maintained; notice I did not say "not guilty". The third option you mention still leaves a considerable cloud of legal suspicion. There is nothing that can be done about the public's perception. The legal system does not need to fuel it. Now, the juries should be afforded protection under the law as shown necessary in this situation. If, in fact, someone lost their employment due to a hostile work environment, then the person has legal recourse against the company for them not providing a safe work place. I do agree with the concept of one or two well-scripted interviews.
More importantly: It's Contempt of Court and direct interference with the JURY and their oath's. Specificly it amounts to detriment with regards to the exercise of a right or duty. What she should do is contact the court and bring it to the attention of the Clark of the Court or The Judge.
Previous Topic
Index
