You are right, it says that the part on the jurors was lifted, but then a few paragraphs later it says:
“While he lifted that piece of the gag order, the judge ruled that a prohibition on disclosing juror information will remain in effect until further notice.”
So if that’s correct then it’s only the witness that the ban has been lifted on.
But why is the article saying two different things about the jurors?
And why the heck would any part of the gag order be lifted at all?
The article seems to contradict itself.
You are right, it says that the part on the jurors was lifted, but then a few paragraphs later it says:
“While he lifted that piece of the gag order, the judge ruled that a prohibition on disclosing juror information will remain in effect until further notice.”
So if that’s correct then it’s only the witness that the ban has been lifted on.
But why is the article saying two different things about the jurors?
And why the heck would any part of the gag order be lifted at all?
Weird
Thanks for pointing that out. You exposed me as a half reader of crappily written articles!
I had to read it like six times before I concluded that there was something wrong with the article and not my reading comprehension.
Maybe a third party will come along and help both of us out.