Let the American People See Trump’s Trials
Cameras in the courtroom provide needed transparency.
“That son-of-a-bitch just lost us the election.”
These words, uttered by Henry Cabot Lodge after watching his running mate Richard Nixon debate John F. Kennedy on live television, prove the power of TV over the American electorate. Seventy million others watched that September 1960 debate and felt similarly, bumping Kennedy into the lead. Kennedy’s future vice president, Lyndon Johnson, having only listened to the debate on the radio, reportedly came to the exact opposite conclusion.
This is TV’s unique power.
In today’s era of high-definition screens, voters get to scrutinize candidates’ every pore for drops of sweat under pressure. In a criminal trial, that kind of scrutiny has historically been the province of juries. Jurors listen to testimony and closely watch witnesses for signs they are lying, considering all the evidence before their eyes before deciding: guilty or not guilty.
This year, Americans may have the unprecedented opportunity to cast a vote for president informed by the guilt or innocence of Donald Trump. But they’ll have a hard time doing that if the courts stop them from evaluating the evidence with their own eyes.
Americans love watching trials. Whether it’s Gwyneth Paltrow, Alex Murdaugh, or Judge Judy, trials are among our most beloved spectacles. Trump’s upcoming trials will have a significant impact on his bid to reclaim the White House, and all Americans have a right to see what happens.
But, as of now, only one of Trump’s trials may be televised.
Trump faces trial in Georgia, New York, Florida, and Washington. Of these, only the judge in Trump’s Georgia case has committed to broadcast the hearings. So how did we get here? Well, the history of banning cameras in courtrooms is long and complicated, starting with an empty crib in New Jersey.
Famous aviator Charles Lindbergh’s son was kidnapped in 1932, and Richard Hauptmann later stood trial for the heinous crime. Because the court initially opened the case to the public and permitted cameras, news outlets were able to air Hauptmann’s testimony. Hauptmann argued that the presence of camera operators denied him a fair trial, which an appeals court rejected. Nevertheless, the American Bar Association was concerned that the sensational coverage impacted the integrity of our judicial system and officially opposed cameras in the courtroom from 1937 to 1982.
In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not prevent states from allowing cameras in their courtrooms, leaving it up to the states to write their own rules. The result is a patchwork of laws governing the use of cameras in courtrooms. In federal criminal courts, the rules of procedure expressly prohibit broadcasting from the courtroom.
Unlike Georgia, New York has some of the most restrictive laws regarding cameras in the courtroom. That’s why several news organizations requested an exemption to cover Trump’s arraignment in New York. The judge denied their request. More recently, lawyers for a coalition of media organizations, including The Washington Post and NBCUniversal News Group, filed petitions asking U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to permit cameras for Trump’s trial in Washington.
Trump’s attorneys have backed the media’s request for cameras, arguing that the “prosecution has sought to proceed in secret, forcing the nation and the world to rely on biased, secondhand accounts coming from the Biden Administration and its media allies.” On the other hand, the prosecution has correctly argued that the rules of procedure do not permit cameras.
As the Supreme Court contemplates whether Trump will be on the ballot for his actions following the 2020 election, citizens may not even have the option to see the evidence used against him in the criminal trial in Washington come the 2024 election. That is a recipe for sowing doubt, particularly among Trump supporters, in our democratic institutions.
Critics may argue that cameras will turn trials into opportunities for Trump to grandstand or expose jurors to public scrutiny. Why take these risks when Americans can find out about the trials from the press? But without cameras in the courtroom, the public must rely on the perspectives of a handful of people allowed inside. At a time when public trust in the media is at historic lows and when we have the technology to seamlessly transmit high-definition video, secondhand accounts and strange sketch artist renderings of the trials of our former president just aren’t good enough. And judges can both protect trials from becoming circuses—see reports of Judge Engoron’s response to Trump’s outbursts during his civil fraud case—and can direct cameras to avoid the jury box, as was the case throughout the live-streamed trial of Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of the Oxford, Michigan school shooter.
It’s not difficult to imagine coverage of the trial varying widely based on whether the reporters work for CNN, Fox News, or MSNBC. Allowing cameras in the courtroom will not suddenly change this dynamic, but it would ensure Americans have the chance to access the actual evidence presented in the cases and decide for themselves. This evidence helps provide us with a common ground to use as the basis for debates.
And it’s what the American people want. Two-thirds of Americans support cameras in courtrooms, even at the Supreme Court.
The Trump trials represent a historic moment. Although jurors will decide Trump’s legal fate, the American people will ultimately be called to decide for themselves whether Trump deserves their vote.
Some fear that the presence of cameras will undermine trust in our legal system. But keeping Americans completely shut out of the courtroom is no way to bolster faith in a system, and Trump has already attacked the legitimacy of the prosecution by claiming it will be done “in secret.”
It’s 2024, not 1935; courts now have the capability to broadcast trials with ease and without interruption. Such transparency is crucial for reinforcing public trust and dispelling Trump’s claims of trial illegitimacy. Upholding our democratic principles necessitates allowing cameras in the courtroom for these pivotal trials.
The American people deserve nothing less.
Greg Harold Greubel and Jeff Zeman are civil rights attorneys at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The opinions expressed are solely their own.
Follow Persuasion on Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube to keep up with our latest articles, podcasts, and events, as well as updates from excellent writers across our network.
And, to receive pieces like this in your inbox and support our work, subscribe below:
Good idea: cameras in the courtroom. Let us (we, the people) see the proceedings.
No. Just, no.
If there are cameras in the courtroom, Trump will just play to the cameras, and the news of the day will be all his hijinx, all the titillation he inspires, and quotable quotes for his apologists, not the trial, or the evidence, or the arguments. "Needed transparency"? Nonsense: we get that from news reports and publication of the transcripts. Nothing with the exception of classified documents will be secret. What cameras provide is a show, for Trump to perform, and for voyeurs to ogle. That's not transparency, it's cheap thrills playing to the basest instincts of the basest people in the country.
Have we learned nothing about how this man operates since he came down that escalator in 2015?