In reading todays posts I also was concerned that the court date earned local tv coverage, just because it isn't good pr for the company. But thanks for the link, it's good to be informed.
Some of the posters left the impression they don't fully understand the restrains on the legal process involving past records of the accused. Past records are taboo from admission until after a conviction is found. It can then be used to determine sentencing. The judges refrain from reading about, or watching news articles that could come before their court. They have an obligation to be neutral on the case before them, and anything that has influenced them about someone's guilt, or innocence, will cause them to excuse themselves from that trial. They have the training, experience, and self discipline to know when to do that.
If it is a jury trial, an officer of the court, or the judge himself, will give a very detailed instruction to the whole prospective jury panel pool, about considerations, and/or reasons for exclusion from that panel. Additionally, before being seated on the panel, each juror will be asked individually if he, or she has any prior knowledge of the case, or has anything that could influence their objectivity, such as being a victim of a similar crime. That is why it takes so long to seat some panels.
Ed Johnson's past conviction will not be known to anyone on the jury panel, and will not be presented during trial. You had better not be seated on the panel knowing about the past conviction, and not saying anything to the court, or YOU will get the free meals as a guest of the Feds, and quicker than the Johnson's ever would. Point is, Ed's priors probably won't be admissible, mentionable, or involved in any way, or it can be deemed grounds for a mistrial.
I am not an officer in any court system, just past multiple jury panel experiences, grand and petit. GLTA LC
