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
A federal judge has ordered the unsealing of 167 Jeffrey Epstein “John Does” (from Ghislaine Maxwell’s civil case).
There’s a lot of confusion (and bad info from the media) surrounding this issue – here is some necessary context on the John Does.
Thread.
We previously charted and categorized each John Doe, and previously summarized this material back in Feb. 2023.
The majority (around 100 of 167) have been identified.
Approximately 11 of the unidentified John Does are victims.
Here are examples:
Furthermore -
Lawyers for Maxwell and Giuffre (the victim) informed the Court that quite a few of the John Does were only mentioned in passing or in a benign context.
Or that “the sealed material as to this individual is not salacious.”