[JediJones]

Sandusky’s guilty though. If your goal is to get a guilty client off on a technicality then, yes, you don’t want them out there providing verbal evidence of their guilt in public. But if I’m innocent and being tried in the media, I will be pleading my case from the rooftops no matter what you guys say. It’s difficult to keep lies consistent because they’re lies, so the more you talk the more you might trip yourself up. But if you’re innocent and only want to tell the truth, I would think you have very little to be afraid of by speaking out. Not that you want to go into a hostile interview that might try to trip you up, but going on Sean Hannity is going to be fine.

[Darren McCarty]

I don't practice crim law, but from what I know, here's the problem. How often when you tell a story of what happened does it stay the same every single time? How often is there an inconsistency, however minor that can be exploited in cross examination? How often if you tell the truth you possibly admit to violating a technicality of the law?

If Zimmerman screws this up, he'll be at worst - admitting to manslaughter. Despite everything speculated, it's still a grey area if he's guilty or not. In addition, going on Hannity does nothing to help him in court.

Let me put it this way. I wouldn't be talking if I was in his shoes, despite my training.