"BTW, YY... You one one hand admits that the incident with the high school woman shouldn't be considered "evidence" but on the other hand saying that you are okay with some judge down the road should choose what is evidence and what is not..."

So, Bobert... if not the judge, then who? Let the prosecution and defense decide for themselves? Sorry, but I trust them even less than I trust "some judge down the road". Is there someone else you would suggest? Problem is, the decision will be made by someone - even if it's just by default/not specifying who.

Sadly, in practice (as opposed to theory), the question is not so much "Who do you trust most to do the right thing?" but rather "Who do you mistrust least?".

I agree with you and McG of H that it stinks that "The attorney puts out the shit bomb and then says, "Gee, sorry"...".
That does poison the jury pool, and should not be allowed.
But - when it comes down to it - that is (yet another) separate issue.

As I see it, we have the following issues that we've been discussing:
1) Should it be legal to withhold evidence?
2) Who should decide what evidence is admissible?
3) How do you keep inadmissible evidence out of the media/public domain?

These issues all affect each other and it can be hard to tell where one begins and the other ends.

The answer to 3 does not have an easy solution (as if any of them do...). The judge putting a gag order on both defense and prosecution is an idea I like. Sadly, that hasn't happened this time. Why not, I can guess, but can't honestly say I know. Perhaps we should have a law requiring such gag orders rather than leaving it up to the judge in a case.

Some countries do not allow media to report such kinds of developments in a trial until the jury has been selected or sequestered - or even until the trial is over. There's much to be said for that approach, although questions of Freedom of Speech arise, and can be very complicated to sort through.

I agree with you both (and many others) that it's appalling and unfair, and that in our country (the US) the outcome of a trial is much more likely to be decided by
1) how much money you have available
and
2) whether you're a member of the majority or of a minority
(and in that order) than by your actual guilt or innocence, which is disgraceful.

But I still do not wish to give the defense or the prosecution the legal OK to withhold any evidence they don't like.

I repeat my question above: who do you think should be allowed to decide whether evidence is relevant/admissible?

This is not an attack. I am genuinely interested in your answer to that question. I'm open to the possibility that you have a solution that hasn't occurred to me and is fairer than the current setup.

Cheers,

YY