NEW YORK (Reuters) ? A Manhattan judge ordered a two-week delay in the trial of Tyco International Ltd.?s former general counsel after prosecutors expressed concerns about the possibility of a tainted jury pool.

Assistant District Attorney John Moscow told the judge he was worried about finding a fair jury for the grand larceny trial of former counsel Mark Belnick given the publicity surrounding the dramatic mistrial of two other former Tyco executives last week.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Michael Obus, who is also presiding over the Belnick case, declared a mistrial in the case against Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz formerly the top two executives at Tyco because of ?outside pressure? on a juror who received an unnerving letter.

A grand jury is now investigating possible jury tampering, prompting the judge Wednesday to refuse a request by media groups to unseal the controversial letter.

Obus agreed to postpone jury selection in the Belnick case until April 26. The selection process was to begin Monday for a trial in which Belnick, who served as Tyco?s top lawyer from 1998 to 2002, is accused of taking a $12 million bonus for concealing illegal conduct by Kozlowski.

Prosecutor Moscow sought a delay until late May, telling the court that the ?phenomenal? amount of press coverage of the recent mistrial could attract jurors with ?hopes of getting on TV?.

In response, the judge said publicity surrounding the Tyco cases would not likely subside, but nonetheless pushed back jury selection to allow prosecutors to make final preparations for trial. ?As much as I would like it to be otherwise ... I don?t think there will be any difference in the amount of publicity and the difficulty it could cause in picking a jury,? he said.

Since the Kozlowski and Swartz trial ended last week, a number of jurors from the case have appeared on television and granted interviews to the press.

Nine leading news organizations, including Reuters Group Plc, sought access Wednesday to the controversial letter and transcripts of closed-door arguments that persuaded the judge to declare a mistrial. Obus agreed to release an edited transcript of the arguments, but said that releasing the letter itself would interfere with the grand jury probe.

But Obus also told prosecutors who suggested their investigation could extend beyond the author of the letter that he wanted all information relating to the mistrial released as soon as possible