I initially loved this article…. It’s a great message on why prosecutors shouldn’t abuse the media.


“This all begs the question: Why would prosecutors even bother to fight for the right to so gratuitously air their personal opinions? For the simple fact that surrendering Twitter or Facebook means giving up a massive source of electioneering power, and a great source of communicative power generally. What, then, would we suffer if prosecutors were banned from social media? It’s hard to say. Prosecutors would still be able to issue press releases, so the public might hear their take on a controversy. And none of their courtroom power would be diminished.”


We have seen the media violations in Centre County. The Centre County District Attorney has been sued for reporting falsities in the media. Parks Miller is presently being sued by Michelle Shutt for defamation. She was previously sued for defamation in conjunction with State College Dot Com for printing entirely false information about a DUI Defendant’s arrest.

But parts of this article I do not agree with…. and it stinks of political propaganda instead of factual accuracies… It appears Alex Grass is smoking too much grass ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Grass ). Like Bruce Castor he also has his very own self bloated wikipedia page. Perhaps they are friends..


“In a feat of calculating, craven political ambition, Kevin Steele, Bruce Castor’s opponent in the election for District Attorney, began to run on a promise to prosecute Cosby. And although defense lawyers have protested Mr. Steele’s tabloid-cum-Twitter revival of Cosby’s prosecution, Mr. Steele has a campaign promise to keep. So, no recusal. ”


Kevin Steele keeps a very low media profile. In fact he is not a prosecutor or tweets or is on facebook, so this is a outlandish comparison! Castor on the hand does tweet…. See :


See Castor’s twitter melt down.



Parks Miller also tweets and twitters, often issuing lengthy vitriolic press releases slandering defendants after a conviction, and/or offering her commentary of guilt or innocence prior to jury selection for all to see on her social media page…. Commenting on evidence tests not yet ruled admissible at trial… tainting aggressively potential jury pools. She has always loved the public charade. She is precisely what this article refers to when he asked the question:

“There’s an intuitive rationale for the proposed proscription as well. Because headlines pre-frame people’s view of an issue especially on social media, it is important that the juror’s first impression of a case is in the courtroom.”

If judges don’t tweet to avoid the appearance of impropriety, then perhaps prosecutors should also refrain from that behavior.