Thir: 'sub judice' is the Latin for 'under judgement': in general, while a case is on its way through the legal system, it's inappropriate to comment publicly on it, particularly if you are involved in some way. Particularly in cases like Strauss-Kahn's it can be damaging to the whole process for details to be published prematurely: how, for example, can you be sure of getting a 'clean' jury pool not influenced by media coverage beforehand?

There was a joke on the subject during the OJ Simpson trial:
'knock, knock'
'who's there?'
'OJ'
'OJ who?'
'You're on the jury!'

One detail I've seen reported, for example, is that NYPD's evidence collected at the scene includes the sheets from his room, with blood on. Unless it's his (a nosebleed perhaps?) it would quite strongly indicate some violent altercation took place - indeed, more violent than the little glimpse most media reports have given us of the incident. The story of a previous incident in which he went at a much younger female journalist "like a rutting ape" seems to fit that, though.

Tying in with other recent headlines in the UK, this is what media reporting restrictions were originally supposed to be used for in the UK: where detailed media coverage of a criminal case in progress would impede a fair trial, not because releasing information is inconvenient to some 'celebrity'!