I see it as a failure. She was not savvy enough to allow the jury to be individually questioned in a manner that would have maintained the integrity of the case. Rather, she opposed the request for the jury to be individually questioned and now the case is overturned. From what I have read, there was a mountain of evidence in this case, including the perpetrator on tape in multiple scenarios. To not allow the jury to be questioned regarding their exposure to pre-trial publicity was short sighted and now she has left her old office with having to retry this case. She then went out and wrote a book about it. To me, that = questionable ethics, and substandard lawyering. I hope the sub-standard part holds true for her defense of CWW, who she is clearly representing for the publicity in my opinion.
