Fighting a case in court isn’t enough anymore; lawyers are fighting outside of court over who gets to talk about it.
In the federal gambling case against former NBA player Terry Rozier, federal prosecutors accused his defense attorney, David Oscar Markus, of making improper statements to the press that could influence potential jurors. Markus responded with a fiery 10-page filing, essentially accusing the government of being hypocritical and making the press statements first.
The argument began after prosecutors attempted to revoke the bail of Rozier’s co-defendant, Deniro Laster, over allegations of witness intimidation. In that filing, prosecutors referenced a group called GMB, which they associated with firearms. Markus fired back publicly, calling the government’s suggestion that GMB was a criminal organization “absurd” and a “dog whistle.” He also suggested the feds were trying to damage Rozier’s reputation because their case was falling apart.
Prosecutors weren’t too excited about this.
In an August 7 letter to Brooklyn federal Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall, they argued that Markus had crossed the line under Local Criminal Rule 23.1, which restricts certain public statements that could prejudice criminal proceedings. They even cited Markus’ appearance on a legal podcast, where he discussed the importance of defending high-profile clients in the court of public opinion. Markus had plenty to say about that.
His no-nonsense response pointed to the government’s nationally televised October 2025 press conference announcing Rozier’s arrest, where FBI Director Kash Patel discussed organized crime and U.S. Attorney Joseph Nocella Jr. declared, “Your winning streak has ended. Your luck has run out.”
Markus argued that Rozier was unfairly associated with a separate Mafia-related prosecution in which he was not charged. He also accused prosecutors of using court filings to generate damaging headlines while objecting when the defense responded.
And this isn’t Markus’ first rodeo with federal prosecutors over speaking to the press. In 2021, while representing Ghislaine Maxwell in her bail appeals, Markus found himself in a similar situation after publishing an opinion piece arguing that Maxwell should be freed following the reversal of Bill Cosby’s conviction. Prosecutors accused him of making improper statements that could influence potential jurors. Markus fired back, accusing the government of hypocrisy (again) and pointing to their own highly publicized press conference announcing Maxwell’s arrest. U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan ordered Markus to comply with rules restricting potentially prejudicial public statements, dismissing his argument that they didn’t apply because he wasn’t Maxwell’s trial attorney. She imposed no sanctions.
His argument sparks a larger question: Why should prosecutors be permitted to hold press conferences and publicly describe their allegations while defense attorneys face criticism for answering reporters’ questions? The government maintained that Markus’ statements risked prejudicing the jury pool. Neither side requested sanctions in the August exchange, and Judge DeArcy Hall did not impose a gag order.
The controversy sounds familiar.
In the Cornell Seven case, Los Angeles Magazine previously reported on a bitter war of words between Jane Doe’s attorneys and lawyers representing the men she accused of sexual assault. The filing also drew in an attorney who represents none of the accused men but has been particularly outspoken in the media.
Attorney Thomas Giuffra accused defense lawyers of leaking confidential material to the media while another attorney was looking for restrictions on what all of the attorneys involved could say publicly. Several defense attorneys shot back, denying the allegations and accusing Giuffra of conducting his own media campaign.
The Cornell judge also did not impose the requested gag order.
Both arguments expose the complicated relationship between the First Amendment, the right to a fair trial and the increasingly influential court of public opinion. Attorneys aren’t free to say absolutely anything about pending cases. Ethical rules and court restrictions exist to protect jurors, witnesses and the integrity of proceedings. But public statements can also serve a legitimate purpose, particularly when a defendant or accuser believes damaging allegations have already shaped public perception.
Credit: Los Angeles MagazineIn high-profile prosecutions, media coverage can be a powerful tool for both sides. The question isn’t whether lawyers should speak to reporters; it’s whether one side should be able to publicly make its case while insisting the other remain silent.
The post The First Amendment Is Getting a Workout as Lawyers Battle for Control of the Court of Public Opinion appeared first on LAmag.
