MRPC Rule 3.6

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter

shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know

will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial

likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. A statement is

likely to have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding

when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding

that could result in incarceration, and the statement relates to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation, or criminal record of a party, of a suspect in a

criminal investigation or of a witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected

testimony of a party or witness;

(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a

plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission,

or statement given by a defendant or suspect, or that person’s refusal or failure to make

a statement;

(3) the performance or results of any examination or test, or the refusal or failure of a

person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence

expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or

proceeding that could result in incarceration;

(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be

inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk

of prejudicing an impartial trial; or

(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein

a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is

presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer who is participating or has participated in the

investigation or litigation of a matter may state without elaboration:

(1) the nature of the claim, offense, or defense involved;

(2) information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;

(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason

to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the

public interest; and

(7) in a criminal case, also:

(i) the identity, residence, occupation, and family status of the accused;

(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in

apprehension of that person;

(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the

investigation.

(c) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a)

shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).

It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the

right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some curtailment of

the information that may be disseminated about a party before trial, particularly where trial by

jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the

protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the

other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination of information about

events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a

right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a

legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public

concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in

debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.

Special rules of confidentiality may validly govern juvenile, domestic relations, and mental

disability proceedings, in addition to other types of litigation. Rule 3.4(c) requires compliance

with such rules.

Rule 3.6 sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer’s making statements that the

lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an

adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of informed commentary is great and

the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in

the proceeding is small, the rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been, involved in

the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.

See Rule 3.8(e) for additional duties of prosecutors in connection with extrajudicial statements

about criminal proceedings.