We usually don't like saying that due to a phenomeome called 'Trial by public opinion'. He has not yet been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, neither can you prove so. Decreeing someone guilty, even outside of court, without proof, can negatively influence jurors to deliver a guilty verdict even if the defense creates a reasonable doubt.
And what next? Ban political expression in public? Ban protests? Ban unions? Banning free public assembly, including for religious purposes, is a one way ticket towards dictatorship.
I'm not saying I agree with the doctrine; in fact I think it's unjust and would prefer it being tossed, though I seriously doubt he has any chance of succeeding on this claim, especially with the current SCOTUS. And I doubt the state's lawyers are that incompetent as to ignore it.
Under the Double Sovereignty doctrine, the Double Jeopardy clause doesn't apply in this case tho. Hence, you can be charged for the same offense twice in both stage and federal court.
Being able to publicly express their opinions, even religion, is a human right and fundamental constitutional right in any democracy. Stripping it would strip the country of freedom of speech and democracy as whole.
No, we should built impenetrable wall between the state and religion, but right to believe and exercise religion is a very fundamental and basic human right.
I think that judges have had enough. Boasberg of DDC has already released a criminal contempt order and by the looks of it, Xinis of Maryland district is also getting pretty pissed.
Time to rewrite the world in assembly