In USA, both lawyers, prosecutors or judges, all belong to the community of legal occupation, behavior constraints of judicial ethics rules of national or state level. These rules, including "America legal person association professional behavior rules" "California professional behavior rule", etc.. In fact, limit the subject outside of the courtroom speech, rely on the judicial ethics rules. Violators, the light will be warned, fined, will be revoked license, expelled from office.

    In general, the lawyer representing the interests of the parties is, in order to make the client is successful, the media exaggerated the facts or conceal the truth, is possible, the public do not expect them to maintain a high degree of objective or neutral. Therefore, judicial ethics statements on the lawyers outside the court restrictions do not strictly, only request related remarks may not cause "may be highly significant bias in the judicial process". But, just to participate in litigation lawyer is limited, not including other law case.

    On 1991, the Nevada attorney agent Gentile case, held a news conference. Gentile claimed that the police "framed frame", the victim is full of "shameless drug dealers". Later, state bar association according to the state judicial ethics rules, will Gentile. Gentile refuses to accept, on the way to the Supreme court. The justices then in this named "McIntyre v. Nevada State Bar Association case" case, the height of what is "significant bias". The Supreme Court held that this kind of speech, lawyer, will seriously interfere with the jury trial, obstruction of justice, the relevant limit does not violate the Constitution's first amendment free speech clause. At this point, "highly likely" significant bias has become a legal limit standard.

    In criminal cases, the prosecutor is also one of the parties, so, American judicial ethics rules remarks to the prosecutor court restrictions and the lawyer asked about. However, the public prosecutor as the prosecution, mastered a large amount of case information, once the leak, also has caused the judicial bias may. Therefore, many states have in view of the special nature of procuratorial work, make the corresponding file limit.

    Compared with the lawyers, prosecutors, judicial ethics rules and requirements American to judge for the speech was the highest. Such as "California judicial ethics rules" stipulates: "the judges not commented publicly on the court or is about to hear a case."

    In 1998, California judge Bode Mann made their decision was criticized in the media together, by reporters defended. Afterwards, California judicial discipline Commission for disciplinary action against him. Bodman thinks, the judge also has the freedom of speech, his words do not exist "highly likely" significant bias, then appeal to the Supreme Court of California. However, the California Supreme Court dismissed Bodman's complaint. Decision points out that, different judges and lawyers in the judicial process, role play, two comments on a fair trial threat, also in the way and extent of different. Judge not spokesmen for the interests of the parties, they are often seen as a neutral arbiter of facts and law, people will think they published opinion than lawyers more authoritative. Because of the impact of the larger, compared with inappropriate comments and lawyers, improper remarks judge more harm judicial justice.

    If you are not hearing a case, the judge can comment? Found that, when the judge to comment on his case in court, people will think that these comments show the party favors, at least is biased. When the judge review other judges pending cases, people may think that these comments with intent to influence the judge. Such comments may also give people an impression that judges, abandoned its judicial role, become one argument for.

    Of course, in a review of other judges to hear cases, the situation is more complex. For example, if the judge openly criticize others foolish, wrong judgment, unreasonable, others will think there are differences between judicial organs, the applicable law is not unified; if the support of a controversial decision, but also easy to make people feel the judges only fellow friends, do not know the truth is not. More terrible is, if the trial is still in the lower court, superior court judge to declare, display stand, also may have to disrupt the trial, without trial decided effect.

    It is based on the above reasons, the California Supreme Court decided, provisions of BMG judge knowingly judicial ethics criterion, but deliberately to comment publicly on the appeal period, its behavior "harmful to the public on the judiciary respect", should be punished. In fact, this is not only the provisions of California, other states, and even the whole USA, requirement for judges also bad not too far.

    In accordance with the above requirements, reasoning and conclusion the judge on the case, can only be expressed in the judgment, not published opinions, because the judge is the representative of the judicial power of the state, once in the media and others debate, will undoubtedly damaged the judicial dignity. Besides, if the analysis, on the evidence of choice, an understanding of the law, judgment, are orderly listed in the decree, itself is a credible referees, others want to question the point of longitudinal, limited. So, for the judges, the best judicial ethics is: judgment, the judge Speechless.