In a comment that will carry a lot of weight at the D.A.'s office, Glatzer and other jurors who talked to the media after the mistrial indicated that the prosecution overplayed its hand by focusing on lavish spending and showing videos of Kozlowski's luxury Manhattan apartment and the extravagant birthday party he knew for his wife on the island of Sardinia. "It all worked against the prosecution," Glatzer said.
What exactly does this mean? Is it fair that the jury in Tyco II will know impressions in the mind of jurors in Tyco I? Is it fair that the press has basically given trial strategy tips to the prosecutors and to the defense attorneys?
The Supreme Court in Irvin v. Dowd held that an accused does not have a right to an ignorant jury but it should be fair and impartial. Justice Frankfurter later said in Bridges v. California that "A trial is not a 'free trade in ideas,' nor is the best test of truth in the courtroom.'" A good example of this would be the rules of evidence allowing only certain pieces of evidence into trial. In the free trade of ideas every bit of evidence would be allowed into the courtroom and the jury could then sort it out. However, in 1978 and 1980 then Justice Rehnquist stated that the First Amendment principles do not apply in the courtroom.
What does this mean for the defendants in Tyco? Has right to a fair trial been impinged by the First Amendment?
