As we noted tonight, the judge in the Jerry Sandusky child molestation trial ordered media outlets to wait until court was adjourned to transit the verdict.

According to Twitter buzz, local journos believe the New York Yimes ignored the rules.

Here was the NYTimes tweet announcing the verdict at 10:08pm Eastern:

Will there be consequences?

Fishwrap of Record motto: Rules for thee, but not for NYT.

Some observers are cheering the Times:


  • lazypadawan

    It’s 2012. All it takes is one guy with a smartphone.

  • f. lindsay

    transmitting a story requires a wi-fi device&fingers——-it’s N.Y. They might outlaw TEXTing in Court,but those LIBERALS CAN’T take aways phallanges-

  • Gary Bernius

    Why would a judge have that kind of power over the media? Or anyone else? I may have ignored him as well. Freedom of the Press… ring a bell? It’s the people’s responsibility to hold the press accountable, not the government… Any branch…

  • mhojai

    “Freedom of the press” -my butt! He wasn’t preventing it from being given, only delaying the news — liberals are incapable of self-restraint…quallities like discipline, honesty, integrity are totally missing in the liberal universe of immediate self-indulgent, self-gratification. (excpet of course, for anyone who would disagree with one of these loons, then those pesky “freedoms” are irrelevant to their feelings of “offense.”
    Truly disgraceful!

  • BeeKaaay

    The New York Slimes does it again. No respect for the law.

  • toxicroach

    The judge can’t take away the scoop. What will the penalty be for reporting a verdict a bit early? A $500 fine? A day in jail?


  • RhymesWithRight

    This does raise an interesting question. Can a judge really gag the press even after the verdict has been announced in open court? It is, at that point, public information

  • David Govett

    Laws are for the little people.

  • bobby_b

    A PA judge has no jurisdiction over a New York corporation with no business offices in PA. Not only can he not enforce his order against people over whom he has no jurisdiction, the order was never valid against the NYT. He’d have to first get jurisdiction somehow, and then serve the order on them before it applied to them.

    Of course, if he found out that one of his local PA papers had a reporter there who quickly called the NYT and told them the verdict right away . . . well, I wouldn’t want to be him.

  • John Walstrum

    NO! What possible legitimate state or public interest is there in holding off on the announcement? I’ll tell you:
    This is probably the highest profile case over which this judge has ever presided. The only reason for the gag order was so that he could be on TV saying “Mr/Madam Foreman – have you reached a verdict?” He’s just butthurt that no one will be watching him now.
    Plus: if the media got this information someone on the inside let it out. That’s who, if anyone, should be held in contempt. And, as I noted above, it was an arrogant, self-serving order by the judge in the first place.

  • McGehee

    So how long before New York Times is held in contempt?

    Thirty years ago.


    Oh, he meant contempt of court. Never mind.

  • teapartydoc

    I pretty much hold all parties in this case in contempt.

  • fantocone

    No way man, who ever would have thunk that. Wow.