In following media coverage on a few channels, I am noticing an abundance of caution criticizing the defense (to the point that I am willing to call it charity) and an aggressive tendency to criticize the prosecution's case. I think there is a legal vulnerability (maybe in the form of libel or slander?) to making commentary about the prosecution's case that is implying clear guilt on A's part. I don't think there are any repercussions for being highly critical of the prosecution; commentators can say whatever they want.
I guess what I'm saying is, IMO, media coverage is giving AM a very generous interpretation of the evidence. Very generous.
I understand the presumption of innocence. I understand that we are hearing the prosecution's case right now, so they are more likely to be the subject of a critique. I know that I may be selecting biased media. I also know that the media is in the business of sensationalism and fostering conflict. Their money is made through controversy.
I just notice an imbalance. I think the fact that the defendant is an attorney represented by very formidable and expensive attorneys is shaping coverage to be overly cautious, and even absurdly partisan, at times. It feels to me that A is getting yet another advantage.
I could have a distorted perspective. Although, I am passionate about justice, and I feel like I try to be as fair as possible.