This is odd. The district attorney prosecuting Scott Peterson has asked that a prosecutor from San Francisco (a different jurisdiction) stop talking about the case on national television. The San Francisco prosecutor has agreed.
In a letter . . . , Brazelton [the Peterson prosecutor] wrote that [San Francisco prosecutor] Hammer's television appearances had gone too far, according to sources who have read the letter, and that he has gone beyond straight analysis and given opinions on the strength of the evidence in the case. The Stanislaus County district attorney voiced fear that Hammer's statements could taint future jurors. . . .
"I don't believe it's unethical or illegal for prosecutors to do legal analysis," said Richard Monroy, president of the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association and chief of the office's gang unit. "But it's frowned upon. It's a professional courtesy not to comment on another jurisdiction's case. . . ."
"It hasn't come up before," [San Mateo County district attorney Jim] Fox said. "But if it did, I would not be favorable to it. ... If you don't know anything about the case, why are you talking about it?"
The justification based on potential jurors could be aimed at any press about a case. The professional-courtesy argument would seem to exclude the speech of experts who are intimately familiar with the legal system. And the expertise argument presented by Fox is just wrong: even if a prosecutor doesn't know much about the facts of a case, he'll certainly know enough about the legal system to educate others. I wonder if the distaste for television commentary just has to do with perceptions of selling out and acting "beneath" one's office.