"unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge."
Considering the outcome... Does anyone know an example of what judges do when defendants appeal openly for financial help? Was this really good legal advice?
I suspect - but this pure conjecture on my part, IADNAL and so on - that this may have something to do with prejudicing a potential jury. Any jury member that knows about a case before being sworn in is automatically disqualified. Giving potentially nationwide attention to your case by running a funding drive in your name would pollute any potential jury.
Again, please don't put too much weight on this, it is purely speculative but it is the best I've been able to come up with so far.
A quote on this subject: "One of the most important reasons for not selecting a member of the panel to sit on the jury is prior knowledge of the case."
I think he should have risked pissing off the judge and getting the word out, but hindsight is 20/20. Its sad this is the way our justice system works, feels like a modern day witch trial.
...unless you're on the other end of it, facing a media-friendly opponent who uses the public spotlight to demonize you before you face off in court...
Considering the outcome... Does anyone know an example of what judges do when defendants appeal openly for financial help? Was this really good legal advice?