4 Quotes by Kenneth Broun

The presence of DNA evidence certainly would be relevant to show that a particular person had been at the scene. It wouldn't tell you the particular circumstances.

As soon as a document becomes public, the lawyer is not contributing further to the possibility of prejudice at this point. Under the rules you can certainly talk about things that are a matter of public record. ? So once that's done, the lawyer can talk about it, and the other side can try to explain it.

It's not unusual. That's what happens lots of times, in my judgment too many times -- and I'm not commenting on this specific situation.

So back-and-forth is implied in that. There are rules I'm sure the Bar will look at very carefully, but whether the rules were violated in this particular instance I don't know.