Someone needs to give defense attorney Paula Phillips a lesson in the role of the media in this country.

Phillips, the lead defense counsel in the capital murder trial of Anthony Mertz, has accused local media coverage of being “inflammatory, inaccurate and highly prejudicial.”

In a pretrial hearing Tuesday, Phillips told Coles County Circuit Court Judge Dale Cini that the media had cost her client the chance to a fair trial in this county. Phillips then submitted dozens of articles from the Charleston Times-Courier, Mattoon Journal-Gazette and The Daily Eastern News as evidence to back up her argument.

But the problem is she didn’t back up her argument at all. In fact, she barely made one. I ask you, Ms. Phillips, where are these inflammatory, highly prejudicial articles you speak of? Because from what I’ve seen they certainly haven’t ran in this newspaper or either of the other two daily publications in the county.

Phillips never provided a specific example in which the media showed prejudice toward her client, yet she continued to insist the newspapers were biased.

Phillips never cited specifics in any article that proved any of the three local papers showed prejudice toward her client. Instead she just asked Cini to read over the numerous articles during an hourlong recess.

Without concrete proof to show the media had treated her client unfairly, Phillips argued that “many of the articles include facts that may be inadmissable in the trial.”

And I suppose that’s the media’s fault? Any facts that have appeared in any news stories involving the case were revealed by police or can be found in Mertz’s case file, which is a public record that any member of this community can go up to the courthouse and look at.

Once it’s obvious that argument’s not going to get her anywhere, Phillips is left with simply claiming there has been too much coverage for her client to get a fair trial.

“The publicity in this case has been overwhelming,” Phillips said Tuesday. “I’ve spent over 20 years (following) Coles County, and I’ve never seen a case get the coverage this one has.”

She closed by saying, “With the type and amount of coverage there has been about this case, there is no way my client can get a fair trial in this county. There’s just been too much coverage.”

What did she expect for a case in which the state is seeking the death penalty for a man who allegedly brutally murdered, sexually assaulted and mutilated a fellow college student? Did she expect local newspaper reporters and editors to just turn their heads and ignore the single most heinous crime that may have ever happened in this county?

Perhaps state’s attorney Steve Ferguson said it best in the hearing’s closing arguments.

“The amount of coverage by the media has been normal for a case of this nature,” he said. “Just because a case has been covered factually does not establish prejudice. There has been no indication that there has been any false or inaccurate information reported by the press.”

He pinned the tail right on the donkey. The media coverage surrounding this horrible murder, and the case of the man accused of committing it, has been nothing but fair.

No newspaper or columnist has called for the head of Anthony B. Mertz. Instead they have followed the rules of this democracy which state that all men are innocent until proven guilty.

As far as I know, Mertz has not been convicted for this crime in a court of law. And as far as I and every other journalist is concerned, he is innocent until that happens.

Now, I’m sure Phillips could find some way to twist an argument claiming that this column shows prejudice toward her client. Of course, I’m sure that argument would be shot down just as her motion for a change of venue was Tuesday.

In fact, the only thing she could conclude is that I’ve claimed she, as a defense attorney, has no clue what the role of a free press is in this country when it pertains to covering a capital murder case.

And she can be sure that’s not a prejudicial statement – that’s the truth.