I think an important distinction is between speech in general and testimony in a courtroom. "Defending" in the sense of publicly arguing that the accused offic

I think an important distinction is between speech in general and testimony in a courtroom. "Defending" in the sense of publicly arguing that the accused officers are innocent is your basic right in a free society. I don't think this sort of speech results in responsibility for future deaths. It doesn't seem very rational for a potential murderer to be encouraged to commit the crime by the knowledge that there are some people out there who will argue that he is innocent. After all, there are lots of examples of people who end up behind bars despite having a large number of supporters. "Defending" in the sense of presenting pseudo-scientific testimony that sways a jury is IMHO perverting justice. Moreover, it shows potential murderers exactly how they too can get away with it, so there is a fair argument that such testimony does result in future deaths.