Actually, he did have a point about jury prejudice.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9705Skilling’s lawyers have asked the US Supreme Court to consider whether in cases when “a presumption of jury prejudice arises because of the widespread community impact of the defendant’s alleged conduct and massive, inflammatory pretrial publicity, the government may rebut the presumption of prejudice, and, if so, whether the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no juror was actually prejudiced.”
I interpret that as the people in the area would suffer from a big prejudice, due to the pretrial publicity(In this case, Wilmore's announcement), would not be allowed to be a jury because of the possibility of prejudice. Granted, this specific case is much bigger, but laws are laws.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_199806/ai_n8796025/Instead, trial courts should investigate jurors exposed to extraneous influences to determine whether there has been prejudicial impact.1768 Extraneous influences include not only juror contact with other people,1769 but also juror contact with evidence1770 and other extrinsic materials.
Juror exposure to extraneous material generally creates a presumption of prejudice that the government bears a heavy burden to rebut.1774 This presumption may be overcome by a showing that the extrinsic material is merely cumulative,1775 that overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt rendered exposure to the information harmless,1776 or that the allegedly prejudicial materials to which the juror was exposed are not extrinsic evidence at all.1777 The presumption of prejudice does not apply when the defendant alleges partiality based on a juror's relationship with the government.
Pretrial and Trial Publicity. Publicity, either before or during trial, can prejudice jurors and violate a defendant's right to an impartial jury.1796 If jurors might have been exposed to prejudicial publicity, the court should make an inquiry to determine the existence of actual exposure.1797 To establish juror partiality, the defendant must show that publicity either actually prejudiced an individual juror1798 or so pervaded the proceedings that it raised a presumption of inherent prejudice.
The trial judge may not completely close the proceedings to the public unless there is a "substantial probability" that publicity will prejudice the defendant's right to fair trial and reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect that right.1806 Other steps that a trial judge may take to protect the fairness of the trial include: limiting the number of reporters in the courtroom and regulating their conduct;1807 insulating witnesses from exposure to the media;1808 controlling the release of information by police officers, witnesses, and counsel;1809 proscribing extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official;1810 and warning the media of the impropriety of publishing material not introduced at trial.1811 If none of the remedies is effective in preserving the defendant's right to fair trial, and prejudicial publicity continues during the trial, the judge may order a new trial.
Above is another article with relevant quotes, though it's 34 pages long(Shit load of court examples it seems). This definately proves Crusty's point of possible prejudice can cause problems in court.
Just giving actual sources, instead of all this ignorance going around.
I wasn't able to find anything relevant about extradition of witnesses, which Crusty said the US court could demand, although wikipedia has an article on extradition refering to suspected or convicted criminals. It's safe to say Wilmore is neither.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition"The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders."Considering wikipedia got its sources right, then Crusty was wrong - Wilmore is above US law.