Should anyone get to write a courtroom tell-all?

Keeping with today’s apparent crime & justice theme, Court TV analyst Jonna Spilbor writes a thought-provoking essay about why Amber Frey’s new book pisses her off — and the ramifications it could have for the Scott Peterson case and others:

Now that we know she has written a book about the case, we must ask: Was her decision to position herself deep in this case motivated by a burning desire to assist the police in capturing Laci Peterson’s suspected killer? Or was it, much more simply, motivated by the prospect of a lucrative book deal?

Certainly, from a defense perspective, it makes a huge difference. But the defense, ignorant of the book, was unable to argue that Frey’s motivation was monetary. Thus, by keeping the fact that she was writing her book secret, she imperiled the legitimacy of the ultimate verdict in the Peterson trial, and impeded the Peterson defense, which should have been entitled to cross-examine her on her book: the timing of her writing of it, its content, and the profits she received.

At the very least, if a witness stands to profit from a guilty verdict, the jury ought to consider that in weighing the witness’ credibility. Think about it. What would the book have been called had Peterson been acquitted? Witness for the Side that Can Get Me the Best Movie Deal?

To the jurors, it could have been critical information. While Frey may have a right to ultimately cash in on her role in the Peterson trial, Peterson had a paramount right to have the twelve men and women who condemned him to death know about it. They didn’t.

Spilbor’s up front about not having read the book ("I will never read the book. If anybody attempts to read the book to me, my ears will surely bleed") but that’s less important than the bottom line:

A spate of high profile criminal trials is now underway, or soon to be – including Robert Blake’s, Michael Jackson’s, and Phil Spector’s. Don’t be surprised when attorneys begin asking witnesses to produce bank statements – so that cross-examination may show secret book deals, or other payments, that suggest that the witnesses have something – other than their oath to tell the truth – on their minds.

Of course, it could be taken further, and publishers could then be arrested for obstruction of justice, but I rather doubt that’s going to happen…