Final answer:
Although Judge Norton did not rule in Walter's favor, the case's extensive media coverage was a positive outcome. It contributed to public discussions on legal and political impartiality, drawing attention to systemic issues within the judiciary.
Step-by-step explanation:
Though Judge Norton did not rule in Walter's favor, the positive outcome of the hearing, as described by Stevenson, was the media attention it garnered. The case was widely reported and sparked significant discussion, which helped to shed light on legal shortcomings and political biases within the justice system. Dissenting opinions, such as that of Justice Stevens, highlighted concerns about the impartiality of the judiciary and hinted at the broader implications for legal processes and public confidence in court rulings.
The Supreme Court hearing under consideration here reminds us that despite a lack of victory in court, raising public awareness and stimulating debate can be considered a victory in itself. This aligns with past cases like Gideon v. Wainwright, which changed the criminal court system profoundly by ensuring the right to legal counsel regardless of one's ability to pay, thus reinforcing the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and benefits the defendant.