One of Donald Trump’s attorneys has said he would “love to” have cameras in court during Trump’s trials. But is it a bluff? As of this writing, cameras have been outlawed from federal trials for three-quarters of a century. By calling for cameras, it’s possible that Trump’s attorney may want to claim that the truth is being hidden from the public, knowing that it’s not possible to televise, anyway.
The attorney is John Lauro, according to The Hill.
John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s attorneys in the Jan. 6 case, said he would “love to see” the former president’s trial televised. . .
“I’m shocked actually that all the networks haven’t lined up and filed pleadings already objecting to this very broad attempt by the Biden administration to keep information away from the American people during the election season,” he continued. “The American people have a right to know, of course, Joe Biden doesn’t want that to happen.”
Lauro appeared on Fox News to reiterate his call.
“Would you be OK – would the president support – a televised trial?” [Fox’s Shannon] Bream asked. “It would have to go through all sorts of hoops and rule changes and those kinds of things, but let the American people see every minute of it and decide for themselves.”
“I personally would love to see that,” Lauro responded. “I’m convinced the Biden administration does not want the American people to see the truth.”. . .
“I would hope that the Department of Justice would join in that effort so that we can take the curtain away and all Americans can see what’s happening,” attorney John Lauro said in an appearance on Fox News.
Cameras have been outlawed in all federal courts since the 1940s.
Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946. Rule 53 states: “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”
In 1972 the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a prohibition against “broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and areas immediately adjacent thereto.” The prohibition, which was contained in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, applied to criminal and civil cases.
However, NPR says the rules could be overridden.
A path through the Judiciary Conference is one way to get a televised trial. Another is for Congress to pass legislation to that effect.
DEADLINE says there are other options.
• Audio coverage. During Covid, the Supreme Court started to allow live audio streaming of oral arguments, a move that boosted hopes for further expanded access. . .
• Partial coverage. Another option is to allow cameras or audio for portions of the proceedings, like attorney opening and closing statements. . .
• Tape delay. The Supreme Court in 2000 saw the unprecedented nature of the Bush v. Gore case and allowed the release of audio of oral arguments just shortly after they finished. . .The point, according to University of Minnesota Law Professor Jane Kirtley, is that there have been moments when the high court has recognized when a case has such a large-scale public impact that it is necessary to break from longtime tradition. . . •
• Virtual courtrooms. Cameras already were in the courtroom when Trump appeared for his arraignment in Washington, D.C.. . .One idea that has been floated in the past is to expand those virtual proceedings to other courthouses around the country.
As Lauro suggested, media outlets are already seeking to have cameras in the courtroom.
“The public not only has a right but has a need to see what happens in that courtroom,” said Dan Shelley, president and CEO of the Radio Television Digital News Association.
“The only way the world can have any modicum of trust in whatever the outcome of the case is if they’re able to see it and hear it with their own eyes and ears.”
Here’s another thing: Trump has been charged in both federal and state courts. State courts have different rules, according to Verdict.Justia:
New York is the only state in the nation that prohibits televising trials. However, there is legislation pending in the New York Senate and the Assembly that, if enacted and signed into law by the governor, would make it possible for the Manhattan prosecution to be televised.
Georgia permits televising criminal trials. It is quite likely that if a party or the press requests that the trial in Fulton County, Georgia, be televised, the court will exercise its discretion to grant this motion. In far less important cases, trial courts have been overturned for denying requests to televise the proceedings.
What would come of a televised trial? Some say it would be like the scene in the Wizard of Oz, when Toto pulls the curtain, and we see that the “great and powerful Wizard” is really just a meek, little old man. In this case, Trump screams and blusters in public, and his supporters see him as invincible and unwilling to abide by any of the rules of society. Compare that to the courthouse drawings of Trump seated among a gaggle of over-priced lawyers, meekly mumbling, “yes sir, your honor.”
Others say that cameras made a circus of the OJ Simpson “trial of the century.”
The poster child for these objections is the prosecution of O.J. Simpson. Judge Lance Ito has been universally condemned for his handling of the trial. . .other actions demonstrated that he had totally lost control over the lawyers.
The fact is that Trump has been a media star for decades, appearing in over 30 movies, starring in his own TV show, and even “wrestling” in the WWE. He knows how to “make love to the camera,” and knows how to use half-truths and spin to sound convincing.
However, Trump faces two dangers, if he takes the stand. First, under oath, he would have to tell the truth, as other people see it, not just himself. That could lead to perjury charges. More dramatically, his ego may get the better of his sense of self-preservation, and he might bellow an incriminating statement, like in the movie, A Few Good Men. In the movie, Jack Nicholson began with, “You can’t handle the truth!” but after being challenged, repeatedly, asking him if he committed the crime, and even after being advised that he didn’t have to answer, Nicholson shouts, “You’re goddamned right I did!”
There would be no way to walk back from that.
