Rule 3.8 requires Willis to refrain from allegations "that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused"
Rule 3.6 forbids statements that would "materially" prejudice a proceeding.
Clear violation; the only question is the appropriate remedy.
There's also a Constitutional argument that the parties need to make - that Willis violated their right to a fair trial.
As the Supreme Court has noted:
Few, if any, interests under the Constitution are more fundamental than the right to a fair trial by "impartial" jurors, and an outcome affected by extrajudicial statements would violate that fundamental right.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh