Donald Trump wants to make a show of sitting in the dock and testifying from the witness stand. His lawyers have supported the request of several media outlets to broadcast live on television the first criminal trial of a former President of the United States, scheduled for March 4, 2024. Prosecutors oppose the move, claiming Trump wants to turn the trial into a circus. Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan must decide whether the hearings can be televised. Their decision will have major implications not only for the trial but also for American politics, as the hearings will take place in the middle of the Republican primaries and just months before the 2024 presidential election.
Court hearings at the federal courthouse in Washington are public. In the most high-profile cases, people line up to secure a seat before the courtroom is full, as was the case this year at the Google monopoly trial hearings. Sometimes an additional room is set up to follow the meeting via video surveillance, which is also available in the press room. Participants are prohibited from accessing video or photo cameras, recording devices or other electronic devices. Cell phones must be turned off. The question is whether these rules, which generally apply to both civil and criminal proceedings, should be retained in a case as important as Trump’s. There are many arguments for and against.
Trump faces four criminal charges, but the only certainty is that the case in Georgia — over alleged election subversion — will be televised because that is what state rules state. It remains to be seen what will happen to the other cases. A large group of major media outlets, including television networks, news outlets and newspapers, filed a petition with Judge Chutkan last month asking if they could gain camera access to the court and broadcast the federal election interference trial in Washington, which is The first criminal trial that Trump is facing. Failing that, they asked the judge to broadcast their own live stream of the trial on YouTube or, alternatively, at the end of each sitting day.
“Since the founding of our nation, we have never had a criminal trial where securing the public trust has been more important than in United States v. Donald J. Trump,” argue the media in its preliminary statement. “The criminal prosecution of a former president, now a presidential candidate, on charges of subverting the electoral process represents the best possible scenario for continued public oversight of the justice system. This failure, based on decades of First Amendment precedent and sound judicial policy, will be functionally illusory without audiovisual access to these procedures. Through his lawyer, Trump has repeatedly emphasized the importance of cameras in the courtroom in this case. For its benefit and that of the court and the public, real-time audiovisual reporting will be a critical step in stopping false conspiracy theories across the spectrum of public opinion, regardless of the outcome of the trial,” they argued. The application is examined in civil proceedings parallel to the main proceedings.
Several hearings on the case were held in Washington courts. But except for the day Trump was in court to enter a plea, the courtroom – which seats around 100 people – wasn’t even full. Some of these hearings were attended by journalists, spectators and Trump allies. For example, a few weeks ago, when debate was over whether to place a gag order on the former president to prevent him from attacking prosecutors, witnesses and court staff, his stalwart Georgia ally, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, was in the courtroom. But when it comes to the moment of truth – the first trial with Trump in the dock – it’s likely the court will be packed with onlookers.
“Today, through audiovisual recording and distribution, there is an opportunity for Americans to exercise their constitutional right to court observation, particularly in a historic case such as this,” the motion states. noting that the right to witness the case should not be limited to the few who fit into the courtroom. “In essence, there is no fundamental constitutional distinction between the established right of citizens to observe court proceedings firsthand and the right to record and broadcast those proceedings for the benefit of the many millions who cannot attend those proceedings in person. The nature of constitutional law should not change depending on the means by which legal proceedings are observed. This trial should therefore be televised.”
Turn voters into swearers
Trump’s lawyers were initially hesitant. The idea of showing a presidential candidate in the dock for allegedly committing numerous crimes didn’t seem like a good way to influence potential voters. However, Trump has embraced his status as a defendant and used it to portray himself as a victim of political persecution. In this way, he was able to exploit his legal problems to raise funds and increase his lead over the other Republican presidential candidates. And Trump is ready to play the test card for his presidential campaign. Ultimately, he wants to make every US voter a jury that will decide their fate at the ballot box.
That’s why Trump was quick to support the idea of broadcasting the trial. “For the first time in American history, a sitting administration has charged its most important and leading election opponent with a crime. Aware that their allegations are baseless, the prosecution has sought to proceed in secret, forcing the nation and the world to rely on biased, second-hand reports from the Biden administration and its media allies. Therefore, the citizens of our great country are unable to judge for themselves what the facts of this case show and how unfairly President Trump is being treated by his political opponent,” reads the motion from Trump’s attorney John Lorbeer.
“The prosecution wants to continue this transvestite in the dark. “President Trump demands sunlight,” the document continues, saying, “This case has all the unfortunate hallmarks of a trial in an authoritarian regime that lacks legitimacy and due process.”
“President Trump fully agrees and even demands that these proceedings be televised in full so that the American public can see firsthand that this case, like others, is nothing more than a fabricated unconstitutional farce that will never should happen again,” says Lauro.
The motion states that Trump’s defense will show that he “had a sacred duty as president to investigate and address fraud and other irregularities in the 2020 presidential election” and “to present all evidence of an election that President Trump believes that it was manipulated and stolen.” Even though there is no evidence of voter fraud, many US citizens believe the 2020 election was rigged.
No one doubts that Trump’s appearance on the witness stand would make for a riveting television spectacle. The public prosecutor’s objection to televising the trial is clearly less well received. On Monday, the public prosecutor’s office responded to Lauro’s request. In a four-page document, they begin by pointing out that he “does not cite a single rule or case to support his position because there are none.” It continues: “Instead of denouncing the alleged injustice of the clear and constitutional ban on broadcasting that has governed federal criminal proceedings – regardless of the defendant – for decades, the defendant’s response is a transparent attempt to demand special treatment and try his case in the courtroom of the public opinion and made his trial a media event. The court should reject this attempt at diversion.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith argues that Trump is demanding different treatment than other defendants in high-profile trials, such as those accused of a seditious conspiracy to attack the Capitol on January 6, 2021 “The public coverage of court proceedings in this case provides further evidence that the defendant’s desired ‘sunlight’ does not necessarily result from disregard for the rules,” the document states.
“Carnival atmosphere”
Prosecutors appear to be tired of Trump’s legal strategy. “He could choose to write court papers with the aim of gaining media coverage rather than seeking legal remedies through the court, as he appears to have done on this and many other occasions. But neither he nor any other defendant has the freedom to bend or break the rules just to achieve a present goal[ing] “to communicate his positions on this case to the American public,” the response said.
“The defendant peppers his answer with various references to ‘fairness,’ but what he is actually seeking is to defy a uniform and long-standing broadcasting ban that was formulated precisely with fair and orderly trials in mind,” the prosecutor says . “Instead, he seeks to create a carnival atmosphere from which he seeks to profit by deflecting, as many fraud defendants attempt to do, the allegations against him.”
Smith also points out that such a scenario is “not hypothetical.” “As the court has already noted in proceedings in the criminal case against the defendant, the defendant and his lawyer, if permitted, are more likely to use their statements in court to conduct a public relations campaign,” he explains in the document.
During Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York, the former president used his testimony to dismiss the case as a “political witch hunt,” prompting the judge to admonish him and tell him he was not attending a political rally.
“The court should not grant the applications if there is an obvious violation […] and further motivated the defendant and his attorneys to make inappropriate statements within the courtroom in order to provoke a public reaction outside the courtroom,” the document continues.
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to receive more English language news from EL PAÍS USA Edition