We're not lawyers here at Daily RFT
, but we occasionally like to play attorneys on the Internetz. (In this imaginary world we always think of ourselves as Matlock. Please humor us in this request.)
So, today we're scratching our silky white coif and nervously fraying the lapels of our seersucker suit as we contemplate the following:
Why are the attorneys for accused murderer Chris Coleman
subpoenaing local media outlets for their new stories and television coverage of their client?
As the Belleville News-Democrat reports
, the lawyers are most likely trying to convince the judge that a change of venue is needed.
But is it really necessary to subpoena news agencies for such information?
Such a move may have made sense during Matlock's glorious prime-time run
(1986-1994), but today?
Coleman's lawyers simply type their client's name into Google and voilà!
-- thousands of news articles about the horrific murder of May 5
don't they also have access to Lexis/Nexis for a more comprehensive
Again, we're not lawyers. Perhaps they need a first-hand account directly from the news agencies in order to convince the judge that local coverage of the case merits a change of venue.
Still, seems strange to Matlock. But enough 'bout that. Let's go get some hot dogs!