The germ for the "Janklow 36" series emerged as a reporter was scanning microfilm copies of the Argus Leader from 1986 while doing research on another topic.

A story about Gov. Bill Janklow releasing a group of inmates - telling them never to return to South Dakota - caught his eye. At the time, the early release of inmates was a discussion beginning in other states that were struggling with bloated corrections budgets and prison populations. It might be good to see how that option worked in South Dakota, he thought, and what happened to those prisoners.

We reached our decision at 11:36 a.m. and walked into the court room a few minutes later to give our verdict.

As I left the building with a few fellow jurors, we rode in an elevator with reporters grilling us for quotes. Their first question: What did it feel like to be a juror in the trial of Ms. Thurman's stalker?

Davies: Were there things about reporting that surprised you, misconceptions about how journalism works or new skills you had to develop? What was it like to leap into this business that you knew so well but hadn't practiced?

Liptak: It was terrifying. My first six months were sheer terror. I really didn't have the background to be any kind of newspaper reporter, much less one starting on the national desk of The New York Times. I didn't have any sources, I had not really conducted telephone interviews. There's a skill set involved in journalism that's not the hardest thing in the world to master, but really you want to do it on your college paper, and maybe at some regional paper, and not in the big time.

The four somewhat conflicted chapters on Enron talk alternately about his prowess, his lack of knowledge, how careful prosecutors were, how ruthless prosecutors were, how terrific his case against the Enron broadband executives was and how it hasn't been successful in court. . . . Should this ex-prosecutor and wanna-be Oregon AG have thought twice before publishing this book, or at least the Enron chapters?

Q. With regard to reporting important legal issues, as well as with any subject matter, I am curious why getting both sides of an argument is always necessary, aside from being a matter of form and style? If side X says the sky is green, and side Y says the sky is yellow, we are no closer to knowing that the sky is blue. You feel me?
— Casey M. Conley, Conway, N.H.

A. Excellent question, Casey, and a fundamental one. Let me separate it into two parts.

First, facts. Reporters should nail down facts for themselves, from first-hand observation, orginal documents, eye-witnesses, the accounts of participants and so on. If there is a dispute about the facts, reporters should report all of the available evidence and help the reader assess it. There is no reason in the world to quote people who are simply wrong on the facts or to suggest there are two versions of the facts when there is support for only one.

Second, analysis. Having laid out the facts as best we can, reporters should help the reader make sense of them. That does not mean dumping a collection of quotations from supposed experts into the paper and leaving the reader to sort them out. At a minimum, beat reporters in a specialized area like the law should be able to provide context and set out the competing arguments authoritatively in their own voice. If an argument is internally inconsistent or has been rejected by the courts, they should say that. If a development tests the conventional understanding of, say, the separation of powers, they should say that, too.

"Prime News" host Mike Galanos uses the day's most powerful headlines as a starting point for diverse perspectives and spirited debate. In each show, Galanos challenges newsmakers and experts to help viewers gain a clearer understanding of the "right vs. wrong" conflict playing out across the country every day.

NANCY GRACE, HOST: Tonight, breaking news, stunning ruling by the Texas supreme court up in their ivory tower, sending scores of children back behind remote and isolated walls of a Texas polygamist compound, this after shocking photos showing FLDS prophet Warren Jeffs planting deep kisses on two child brides, one age 12, the other 13, one shot their first anniversary photo. Hello! She`s only 12, and it`s their first anniversary? The crazy polygamy cult leader may be worshipped as a prophet, but the photos now prove he`s nothing but a pervert, confirming allegations of systematic marriage forced on little girls, not to mention alleged abuse on little boys and 41 known broken bones. But even so, tonight the courts decide to send the children back to this?

Q. How would you grade the media these days? In the past, you’ve chided the press for its legal coverage. What’s your impression of the press now, after having been through several interviews in recent months?

A. I gave a talk, years ago, about how the press covers courts ? this court or any court. And I didn’t think it was a mean talk at all. In fact I thought the theme was: To understand all is to forgive all. You cannot expect the general press ? your blog may be a little different because it’s directed to lawyers ? to say what a case is really about. You know, reconciling Section 232(b)(3) with some other section. You’d put your readers to sleep.

Your readers want to know, did the good guy win or did the bad guy win? I analogize it to the most famous jury trial in all of literature [The Merchant of Venice], where the judge is praised: “Oh wise judge, oh beautiful judge.” But Portia was a terrible judge. I mean, you know, if you write a contract to take a pound of flesh, then obviously you take whatever blood goes with it. That’s implicit. That was terrible. But who cares! The good guy won, and the bad guy lost. And that’s basically what happens [in the press]. What we do here does not get faithfully conveyed.