It's time for a gag order. The disclosure and dissemination of purported confessions and details of the investigation indicate a lack of self-restraint and a lack of an ethical compass by those responsible. It's up to the prosecutors to control their agents and "senior officials." The media needs to exercise restraint as well. Trials must take place in courtrooms, not living rooms, and the media's complicity in and furtherance of the lynch-mob mentality is shameful.

The media is out for a buck, not to enlighten the public. It wants to sell more papers, attract more viewers and increase its online traffic. It doesn't care whose privacy and constitutional rights it tramples.

This prurient interest in salacious details from pending court cases, particularly before trial when evidence has not yet been admitted or tested, has gotten out of hand.

See:

• Code of Federal Regulations, § 50.2
  "Release of information by personnel of the Department of Justice relating to criminal and civil proceedings."
• US Attorney's Manual 1-7.000
• ABA Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

  (f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

• ABA Criminal Justice Section Standards, FAIR TRIAL AND FREE PRESS, PART I, CONDUCT OF ATTORNEYS IN CRIMINAL CASES

  Standard 8-1.1 Extrajudicial statements by attorneys

  (a) A lawyer should not make or authorize the making of an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding.

  (b) Statements relating to the following matters are ordinarily likely to have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding:

  (4) the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by the accused, or the refusal or failure of the accused to make a statement;

• ABA Standards on Prosecution Function

  Standard 3-1.4 Public Statements

  (a) A prosecutor should not make or authorize the making of an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the prosecutor knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding.

  (b) A prosecutor should exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under this Standard.

Courts have granted gag orders for such violations in the past. Occasionally, they even hold the officials responsible. Attorney General John Ashcroft was censured by the federal court in Michigan for his comments in a terror case (the case ultimately was a dismal failure.) The court's 82 page order is here. In another terror case, the defendants complained of violations by AG Holder . More here. (the motion was denied.)

From the order restricting extra-judicial comments in the OKC bombing case:

A. None of the lawyers appearing in this case or any persons associated with them, including any persons with supervisory authority over them, will release or authorize the release of information or opinion about this criminal proceeding which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by any means of public communication, if there is a reasonable likelihood that such disclosure will interfere with a fair trial of the pending charges or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice.

B. This duty to refrain from prejudicial disclosures requires all counsel to take reasonable precautions to prevent all persons who have been or are now participants in or associated with the investigations conducted by the prosecution and defense from making any statements or releasing any documents that are not in the public record and that are reasonably expected to be publicly disseminated which would be likely to materially prejudice the fairness of this criminal proceeding.

C. None of the lawyers appearing in this case or any persons associated with them, including any persons having supervisory authority over them, shall release or authorize the release of any extrajudicial statement which a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by any means of public communication, concerning any of the following matters related to this case:

(1) The prior criminal record (including arrests, indictments, or other charges of crime), or the character or reputation of the defendants.

(2) The existence or contents of any statements given by the defendants to any law enforcement personnel or the refusal or failure of the defendants to make any statements to law enforcement personnel.

(3) The performance of any examinations or tests or any defendant's refusal or failure to submit to any examination, or test.....

That any U.S. or law enforcement official would provide the following to the media is inexcusable. The buck stops with the Attorney General. He needs to stop these comments immediately.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev admitted to authorities Sunday that he and his brother were behind the Boston Marathon bombings, according to a senior law enforcement official.

Tsarnaev made his admissions to FBI agents who interviewed him at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where he is being treated for multiple gunshot wounds. He had not yet been given a Miranda warning.

There's also another problem with the leaks. Much of what the media reports from anonymous law enforcement sources early on in cases turns out to be dead wrong. The early reporting on Sandy Hook and Adam Lanza is a prime example.

Here's a "memo" I "wrote" to Holder on TalkLeft about similar improper comments in the case of the Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shahzad.

Dear Mr. Holder:

You and law enforcement agents investigating the Times Square failed car bomb attempt have released information about the content of post-arrest incriminating statements Mr.Faisal Shahzad made to authorities. Your statements are improper extrajudicial comments that fail to comport with both the mandatory rules of professional conduct and the suggested ABA Standards on Prosecution Functions and Criminal Justice.

...Please use your able skills to teach by example. Stick to the rules and let the information and evidence come out in a court of law, where it belongs, and not in the court of public opinion, where its dissemination carries a great risk of prejudicing the accused.

From the OKC bombing case to the 2002 DC Sniper case to the Detroit terror case to the underwear bomber to Faisal Shahzad to Jared Loughner to James Holmes and now the Boston bombing case, law enforcement just leaks like a sieve and is rarely, if ever held accountable. That needs to change.