The story of the man who killed his five children leaves me wondering about the judicial system.

I’ve sat in on several murder trials, and while each one is different, they all have a similar theme, prosecution wants a conviction, and the defense wants acquittal.

A recent motion by the defense in the case of the South Carolina father who killed his children, was based on his concern that an initial appearance would taint a potential future jury.

The problem is any potential jury has already been tainted. There’s not a soul alive that has not heard about the father who killed his five children. Stories are released every 15 minutes with the latest updates.

Essentially, for the trial to be as fair as the defense would like it to be they would have to find a community of people who live off the grid, far away from all the trappings of modern society.

So is there really a way to have a fair trial with this much coverage of the ins and outs of the week’s biggest story?

It could be possible, but very difficult.

My point is, the defense attorney’s request to not hold the initial appearance is moot. Anyone chosen to serve on a jury for the inevitable trial will bring with them certain prejudices.

I in no way advocate limiting the media’s availability to news. Instead I pose the observation of reality. People are by nature curious, and thereby like to hear of the goings on in the world.

In my opinion it’s an exercise in futility to attempt to curb what a potential jury would know about a case, so the lawyers should save their motions for more pressing m