Why It's Crucial: The Trump Trials Deserve to be Televised
Cameras in federal courts are crucial for transparency The case of United States of America v Donald J Trump demands it Let's uphold an open democracy and allow the people to witness justice being served Bipartisan support exists, Congress should act now
The United States of America versus Donald J. Trump is the perfect hypothetical case that calls for cameras in federal courts.
The federal government's presentation of evidence next March will undoubtedly pique the curiosity of every American voter. It will shed light on whether the former president, who is currently the leading Republican candidate for the upcoming election, attempted to overturn the previous election.
It is highly likely that Trump will seize this opportunity to turn his legal troubles into a political spectacle. As evidenced by his actions on Monday outside the New York courtroom during the civil fraud case, he will likely resort to attention-grabbing tactics, such as mimicking the act of zipping his lips, possibly alluding to the gag order imposed on him.
With the testimony from Trump or his former allies being documented on cameras, it would become more challenging for him to merge the four distinct criminal cases and dismiss the documented evidence as a mere "witch hunt."
Under oath, but off camera
Although not captured on camera or tape, Trump's conduct during his testimony on Monday could provide justification for introducing courtroom cameras in his forthcoming criminal trials. In contrast to his usual appearances on television, Trump was obligated to swear an oath to speak the truth. As Judge Arthur Engoron in New York has already ruled Trump accountable for fraud and is presently deliberating on his penalty, Trump utilized the chance of being interrogated by the attorney representing the New York Attorney General's office to vehemently criticize the entire justice system and avoid addressing inquiries regarding the overstatement of his asset values on financial disclosure documents.
Yet instead of being a figure of great significance, he found himself transformed into a mere ordinary individual, subjected to the same laws as everyone else.
The civil trial could potentially be the sole occurrence where Trump provides testimony, yet it serves as a mere glimpse into the events that lie ahead.
Four trials and an election
The initiation of a federal prosecution concerning the interference in the 2020 election coincides with the commencement of primary elections across the majority of the country. Subsequent federal trials are projected to take place for mishandling classified data and for the manipulation of election outcomes in Georgia. Additionally, a trial in New York is anticipated for the fabrication of business records in a covert payment scheme, although it remains unclear how many of these proceedings will be concluded prior to the Election Day.
The results from a recent series of polls conducted by The New York Times and Siena College indicate that the upcoming four criminal trials will hold great significance for the 2024 election. These trials could potentially wield a substantial influence on Trump's level of support in crucial states, as suggested by the report from The Times.
If the former president is convicted and sentenced, as many of his allies expect him to be in the Jan. 6-related trial held in Washington, D.C. next year, around 6 percent of voters across Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin express their intention to switch their votes to Mr. Biden. This could potentially sway the outcome of the election.
Attacking the credibility of the justice system
The question of whether granting every American access to court cases would undermine or strengthen confidence in the justice system is raised by Trump's attempts to weaken it.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, the federal judge in Washington, DC, in charge of what is anticipated to be the first and potentially most significant criminal trial against Trump, is currently deliberating on the level of access the public should have.
Let the people see
Requests have been made by media organizations, such as CNN, to Chutkan, seeking an exemption from the federal court policy that currently bars the broadcasting of court proceedings in order to uphold the principles outlined in the First and Sixth amendments.
The normal justifications for transparency hold significant significance in this instance, given the presence of a divided electorate consisting of millions of individuals who, as indicated by opinion polls, still hold the belief that the 2020 election was fraudulent. While Trump's legal team has not expressed a specific stance on cameras in Chutkan's courtroom, they have expressed support for the concept in various media interviews.
"This is not a legal defense that Trump is attempting to present; rather, it is a political defense," remarked Laura Coates, CNN's chief legal analyst, in response to Trump's aggressive testimony on Monday. "His intention is to have the cameras present in the courtroom as a means to convey a message of defiance."
The argument against cameras
Special counsel Jack Smith's attorneys oppose the proposal and have requested Judge Chutkan to adhere to the existing judicial policy, which was initially introduced in 1946 under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53. Moreover, broadcasting of court proceedings has been strictly forbidden since 1972.
Although the Sixth Amendment ensures "public" trials, the current interpretation limits this to individuals physically present in the courtroom or, in certain situations, those in an overflow room with restricted access to live proceedings.
According to federal prosecutors, in the case of Trump, it might be more advantageous for others to hear about things indirectly. The prosecutors mentioned the "acrimony in public discourse" and proposed that the broadcasting of proceedings could potentially intimidate both potential witnesses and jurors.
"Moreover, being aware that their photographs will be shared on social media can potentially influence a witness's preliminary statement. Furthermore, the realization that the trial will be publicly televised from its inception could contribute to jurors being hesitant to participate," according to the document submitted by the prosecution last Friday.
The territory of an open democracy
I approached Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix the Court, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for transparency in the US court system, to discuss these concerns. According to him, there are ways to address security concerns. It is important to note that no one is proposing the broadcasting of jurors' images. Roth suggested that concerns about witnesses could be addressed through the use of audio feeds instead of television feeds or by implementing alternative approaches. However, he emphasized that testifying anonymously is not an option in these cases.
"It is inherent to an open society," he commented. "There will always be an increased emphasis on security during any of the Trump trials, regardless of the presence of cameras, but this heightened focus should not hinder broader public access."
A rule since 1946, a prehistoric time for cameras
The topic of cameras in courts has been reconsidered several times in the past few decades. This includes the implementation of pilot programs for audio and video transmissions, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic when courts had to make temporary adjustments due to limited physical presence.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has also taken steps towards greater transparency. Since 1955, they have been recording audio of oral arguments, but now, all Supreme Court arguments are uploaded on the same day they are heard.
Supreme Court justices, as mentioned previously in this newsletter, often express support for cameras in the courtroom until they obtain a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. The Judicial Conference of the United States, responsible for setting administrative policy for US courts, convenes twice a year and is chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts, who is skeptical about the idea of cameras in the court.
Congress could act. Theres bipartisan support
The Trump cases will not be granted a special exception by the Judicial Conference, and any suggested alteration will not be implemented until 2026, which is long after it would be significant for the upcoming election and the ongoing prosecutions.
That leaves advocates for cameras with two options.
Chutkan could make an exception of her own, citing the request by media organizations.
Alternatively, Congress has the option of intervening and modifying the regulations through legislation. This proposition doesn't seem entirely absurd considering that Representative Mike Johnson, a Trump ally, currently holds the position of Speaker of the House.
Regarding the Senate, a bipartisan suggestion has been put forth to mandate the presence of cameras in the Supreme Court during proceedings. Although this is not directly related to the criminal trials of Trump in the lower federal court, it does indicate a bipartisan willingness to enhance transparency within the judicial system.
