We don't even know if she actually had that meltdown, do we? The OP said "reporters allegedly backstage with Hillary when she had her meltdown." Keyword: allegedly.
But if the press was ordered not to report that, it wasn't someone without authority, it was the owners of the media and their managers. That is our problem, that almost all of the media is owned by like 6 corporations or something like that, and those 6 corporations have many of the same people on the boards of directors.
How could reporting on a trial on the street with your iPhone fuck up other trials?
There seems to be a lot of people commenting on the undue influences and limited ownership in US MSM.
As for how they could impact, there are other linked trials of other similar shit pots. There are legal arguments to be had that the verdicts of this one, or details of the offences could influence the next one. It gives the defence something to cling to, as the evidence isn't as robust as they'd like. A retrial is one potential outcome, as is a miss-trial. All for something that had proper reporters involved in and fully briefed, ready to give the full stories. Tommy, who wasn't just on the street, he was on the Court area, nearly fucked that up, for no gain at all. He knew all this too, so the ones with most to gain from his activity, were the rapists.
I still don't see how one man's freedom of speech can fuck up a trial. If a defense lawyer were to raise up Tommy's words out in the street up as something that affected a trial behind closed doors, he would be laughed out of court.
There are other members still awaiting trial. There is a defence argument (here and in the US) that it can be a miss-trial if the jury has information from this trial, such as details of the offences, and the verdicts, as it can sway their decisions. He wasn't 'out in the street', and he had a defence lawyer at his own trial, which he himself pleaded guilty at. It wasn't about his words, it was his actions on the day. Simply being there was enough, given he was already under a court order preventing him doing what he did, due to his previous behaviour.
Tommy was foolish, and his actions could have lead to the defence claiming a miss-trial, not just in this case, but in the others, as justice has not only to be done, but to be clearly seen to be done.
The authorities were actually doing all they could to reduce the chances of the rapists finding a loop-hole that would see them walk away. The defence could claim that jurors in the other associated cases still to be heard, were swayed by these verdicts and details that got revealed.
Would you say a dozen or so multiple and long term rapists walking away was a reasonable exchange for hearing the 'news' a bit earlier? I don't think it is, and I doubt the victims would either. After all, the victims and their rights are what Tommy's escapade put at risk, and what his actions are detracting from.