http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/26/caylee.anthony.gag.order/index.html
This article is old (relating to gag order) but a reminder of Judge Strickland's comments about the media involvement are interesting and I don't think the SA office has done anything that would make Strickland reverse his thinking along these lines. I am seriously doubting that a COV will granted...
A few snippets...
Florida 9th Circuit Judge Stan Strickland said he did not think a gag order would stop the media whirlwind surrounding the case and
he could not find the publicity would hurt Anthony's right to a fair trial.
"While the court shares the state attorney's concerns about the amount and nature of the publicity, the legal standard has not been met," Strickland wrote in his ruling.
"The state attorney's office argued that
the defense team, as well as the Anthony family's lust for the 'limelight,' may well sabotage the potential jury pool when this case is ultimately tried," the judge continued.
"While this argument has some appeal, it does not rise to the level of being a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice.
Further, this court is confident that even with a 'gag order' the publicity and media attention would continue unabated."
In his order, however, Strickland reminded the attorneys that Florida bar rules prohibit "extra-judicial comments" that are likely to prejudice the trial. He stressed that "patently false statements" made with the intent to pollute the jury pool will be referred to the Florida bar for disciplinary action.
