Media coverage of the trial so far has been decent but not spectacular. Too many journalists have failed to distinguish for their audiences the distinctions between what has been legally relevant in the trial and what some might consider to be politically or historically or even journalistically relevant. For example, you would have thought from the coverage that it was a huge deal when former New York Times reporter Judy Miller was unable to remember precisely during cross-examination by Libby's lawyers any other conversations she may have had about Plame-Wilson. But, apart from the fact that it might have undermined Miller's credibility in general, it wasn't a big deal at all since it didn't undermine her timeline as it related to what and when Libby had told her about Plame-Wilson.

The coverage of the Scooter Libby trial has been jaunty to the point of slapstick--quite different from the cathedral solemnity when journalists are in the dock. There have been no self-righteous editorials from the New York Times or the Washington Post with titles like "Press Freedom on the Precipice" or "Showdown for Press Freedom" (both real examples from the Times). This isn't hard to explain: I have been loving Scootergate myself and devouring the coverage. It's great to see the ham-handed machinations of the Bush Administration exposed. Yet Libby faces the possibility of years in prison and the certainty of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills--all because he allegedly tried to help journalists produce this sacred object, a leak.

There's nothing wrong with this; Greenburg's reporting has brought out new information, and the rest of us are free to speculate about O'Connor's truthfulness and her thinking. Still, it's worth noting the trade-offs this sort of reporting entails -- in this case, perhaps, access in return for the decorous handling of O'Connor's disclosure -- especially in light of the court's guarded norms.

The press reviews for the four-part "Supreme Court" TV series have been very favorable except for one. I feel sorry for New York Times readers who were put off from watching by a stunningly supercilious and ignorant review (Jan. 21) by Virginia Heffernan, who found it "boring." The New York Times has superbly knowledgeable Supreme Court reporters Linda Greenhouse and Adam Liptak, but chose to assign the review to a writer who is very badly disadvantaged educationally.
    But none of the rest of us need be in that sad state thanks to Thirteen/WNET and PBS. There's more to television than Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell.

"By the time you get up to an appellate court -- and lawyers ought to learn this -- I don't much care about your particular case," he said. "I am not about to produce a better result in your case at the expense of creating terrible results in a hundred other cases."

Judge Larry Seidlin's dream is to become a judge on a TV courtroom show. The endlessly entertaining Florida judge who is hearing the Anna Nicole case has had a TV show on the brain for months. Sources say Judge Seidlin has even made a demo tape of cases that were recorded in his courtroom.

may be the only visible force for political openness and change in China at a time when the surging economy and the country’s rapidly expanding global influence have otherwise strengthened party leaders. The authorities have refrained from suppressing it entirely, at least partly because it operates carefully within the law and uses China’s judicial system, as well as the news media, to advance its aims. Yet nearly 18 years after the June 4, 1989, crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing, China quickly crushes any organized opposition. Rights defenders face the delicate task of coordinating their actions and expanding their collective influence when they remain autonomous, rudderless and, very often, rivalrous.

All you boys in Big Oil better watch out. A big-time New York City attorney is after you, and his clients are pretty hard to ignore: 30,000 Ecuadoreans unhappy about a certain massive mess. They're looking at $6 billion in cleanup costs, and somebody's gotta pay.

I think, in general, it's a good thing . . . . Doing nothing was the preferred approach for many D.A.s and certainly the U.S. attorney's office. I think you are seeing district attorneys moving more aggressively to say, "Why shouldn't we avail ourselves of the simple opportunity technology offers?" I certainly think they have a right to speak out and, in general, it's better than not speaking at all.

Because a unanimous jury is needed for a guilty verdict, a defendant need convince only one juror of his innocence to avoid a conviction. As a result, lawyers said, defense lawyers prefer to have as many sitting jurors as possible to increase the chances of having someone who refuses to vote for a guilty verdict.