I don’t think your views are naive at all. The Duke case is the one I use most as an example of why the media usually isn’t your best friend whether your a prosecutor or a defense attorney.

If you don’t feed them, there is nothing to sensationalize. If you don’t feed them, there is nothing to be taken out of context. If you don’t feed them, there is no room for miscommunication or misinterpretation. If you don’t feed them, there is nothing that will come back and bite you in the glutes.

Having said that, there certainly are going to be times where if you don’t say anything in rebuttal, your client gets crucified by the media. Which is why I prefer the less is more option. If I feel the need to say something, I take the minimalist approach.

As for offering up factually baseless comments, the client would have to find another attorney to do that…I’m not the one for the job.

The question of handling the press in general is a much larger issue, with many variables and concerns, and is poorly served by simplistic views. There are times when it is necessary, indeed vital, to say something lest the pool be permanently tainted. There are times to keep one’s stupid trap shut, lest you commit to a position that will later destroy the client.

But there are times when a high profile case gets framed by the media based upon publicized myths, which if not dispelled become impossible to counter later. This is a very complex subject, and David’s concern added another fascinating and troubling wrinkle.

When I see either defense or prosecutor making quotes to the media, I take it with a grain of salt. I guess I’ve come to think that the “my client is innocent” statement, –regardless of how ridiculous it may seem– is just part of the job. [Although I understand they really are innocent until convicted, society doesn't seem to work that way. (Think Duke lacrosse players, et. al.) ]

I’d like to think that if I ever sat on a jury I wouldn’t care much about what the lawyers said but rather what the evidence indicated. Perhaps that’s naive.

If one were in private practice, I think the SOP might be a bit different.

I agree with you that restraint on the court house steps should be shown. Anything else and you risk coming off poorly.