Although federal rule forbids “the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom,” 37 congressional Democrats sent a letter asking the Judicial Conference to explicitly authorize the broadcasting the cases of United States of America v. Donald J. Trump. Legislators from both parties fear that if actual footage is difficult to access, “siloed” audiences relying only on information from extremist narrators could lead to post-trial violence. UPDATE 08/10/23: Or maybe PRE-trial violence: “Security bolstered for judge overseeing Trump election case.”
“If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness, as directly as possible, how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.” – Rep. Adam Schiff
If the Judicial Conference refuses to change the rule, then a congressional bill is required.
Action: Email/Call your senators and ask them to support S.833 – Sunshine in the Courtroom Act.
Any bill must address the serious dangers of broadcasting this trial. The threat “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU!” was a rallying call to his faithful. Nick Akerman, assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York stated “It is one thing to testify in a public courtroom; it is a whole different level of public exposure to testify before the entire world on television. A witness who is named and pictured on television becomes a sitting duck for any Trump partisan intent on seeking retribution.“
Currently, there are two bills to allow broadcasting Trump’s trial in the Judiciary Committee. Only one of them (S.833 – Sunshine In the Courtroom Act) addresses the obvious dangers to witnesses and jurors. Both CA senators, Feinstein and Padilla are on this committee.
Minimal call script to your senators: I’m calling from [zip code] to ask Senator [___] to support S.833 – Sunshine In the Courtroom Act to allow for broadcasting and filming in federal courtrooms. This transparency would allow Americans to see for themselves what is happening in the most significant trial in our country’s history, instead of relying on biased narrators, while still providing specific measures for the safety of witnesses and jury members. S.858 – Cameras in the Courtroom Act does NOT provide such safety measures and should not be passed without their addition.
(Cosponsors)
- S.833 – Sunshine In the Courtroom Act : This bill currently has (4) Democratic senators, but NOT ours (Padilla, Feinstein)
- S.858 – Cameras in the Courtroom Act – Our senators are not cosponsors
Contacts
Here are the members of the Judicial Committee. Look for senators from states where your friends and family live and have them call as well.
Deeper Dive
Naysayers say that Trump’s fans are “unlikely to be swayed by a live feed” and that Trump loves a camera. However, the public didn’t get to see him pissed off and “deflated” after US District Judge Moxila Upadhyaya referred to him as mere “Mr.” Trump, versus “President.”
But we were worried about the safety of witnesses and jurors, especially as we’ve already seen how he provoked abuse against pollworkers and election officials.
S.833 – Sunshine In the Courtroom Act provides these safeguards.
(ii) OBSCURING OF WITNESSES.—Except as provided under clause (iii)—
(I) upon the request of any witness (other than a party) in a trial proceeding, the court shall order the face and voice of the witness to be disguised or otherwise obscured in such manner as to render the witness unrecognizable to the broadcast audience of the trial proceeding; and
(II) the presiding judge in a trial proceeding shall inform each witness who is not a party that the witness has the right to request the image and voice of that witness to be obscured during the testimony of the witness.
(B) NO MEDIA COVERAGE OF JURORS.—The presiding judge shall not permit the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of any juror in a trial proceeding, or of the jury selection process.
(C) DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE.—The presiding judge shall have the discretion to obscure the face and voice of an individual, if good cause is shown that the photographing, electronic recording, broadcasting, or televising of the individual would threaten—
(i) the safety of the individual;
(ii) the security of the court;
(iii) the integrity of future or ongoing law enforcement operations; or
(iv) the interest of justice.
S.858 – Cameras in the Courtroom Act does NOT provide such safety measures and should not be passed without their addition.
Resources
- Referenced article: Washington Post – Opinion Why the Trump trial should be televised, by Neal Katyal
- (The Hill) Trump’s criminal court proceedings must be televised
- (LATime) Opinion: Trump’s trials should be televised, by Laurence H. Tribe and Dennis Aftergut
- (NYTimes) Why Televising the Trump Trials Is a Bad Idea
- (CNBC) Trump’s court appearances should be nationally televised, Adam Schiff says
- (PBS) Should Trump’s trial be televised?
- (Independent) Trump reportedly ‘irked’ that arraignment judge called him ‘Mr Trump’
- (Youtube) US election officials detail Trump voters’ death threats – BBC News
- (MSNBC) The case against televising Trump’s trial – It’s a tempting idea. But the risks of a reality TV trial outweigh the potential benefits.
- (congress.gov) S.833 – Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2023
- (congress.gov) S.858 – Cameras in the Courtroom Act
- (NBC) Security bolstered for judge overseeing Trump election case – The increase in security around U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan comes as the former president has been criticizing her on social media.
INDIVISIBLE VENTURA 