The Case for Televising Donald Trumps Trials | Jon May | Judgment

[ad_1]

In the near future, former President Donald Trump may be charged with criminal offenses stemming from his participation in the January 6, 2020 insurrection in Washington, DC; the effort to overturn the election results in Georgia; and the unlawful possession and storage of material related to national defense in Palm Beach, Florida. He has been indicted for crimes related to paying hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump’s prosecution for his part in invading Congress and trying to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find 11,780 more votes to make Trump the winner in Georgia may be the most consequential charges. criminal in the history of the United States. But are the consequences good or bad for our democracy?

Even though there is no evidence that the election was stolen, 29% of voters believe that it was. Few care that 86 judges, including 38 Republican appointees, have rejected voter fraud claims brought by Trump’s lawyers.

These Trump supporters subscribe to claims made by Fox News personalities that Trump won the election, despite the fact that neither the broadcasters, nor management, nor the owner of Fox believed it. that this is true. Trump followers will never abandon their support for Trump even after Trump has been convicted by overwhelming documentary and testimonial evidence.

New York is the only state in the country to ban televised 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 allows televising of criminal trials. It is 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 In less important cases, trial courts have been withdrawn for refusing requests to televise the proceedings.

When the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure became effective in 1946, Rule 53 prohibited the broadcasting of any proceedings in federal courts. But in 1988, the judiciary began to consider whether to change the rule. So far, opponents of any change have prevailed. Opponents of televised trials successfully argued that participants in the proceedings could be influenced by the presence of cameras. Depending on the case, jurors may fear for their safety or the community’s reaction to their verdict. Lawyers may grandstand or extend examinations to gain more time in front of a TV audience. And in many high-profile or celebrity state prosecutions, the greater publicity that TV brings has caused some judges to behave in strange ways and lose control of their courts.

The poster child for these objections is the prosecution of OJ Simpson. Judge Lance Ito was universally condemned for his handling of the trial. Although reasonable people may differ about the validity of some of Judge Ito’s actions such as allowing the trial to continue for nearly a year or excluding certain relevant testimony while admitting clearly irrelevant evidence other actions showed that he had completely lost control of the lawyers. In his book, The Run of His Life, The People v. OJ Simpson, Jeffrey Toobin describes losing control. For example, F. Lee Bailey and Marsha Clark often traded insults in front of the jury. When Judge Ito limited the introduction of evidence of Detective Furman’s racist statements and admission of police brutality, Defense Attorney Johnny Cochran called a news conference in his office and condemned the judges’ decision. During the trial, Judge Ito will invite celebrities into his private chambers, and on the eve of opening statements, when he considers the state’s motion to admit the Simpsons’ history of domestic violence, Ito told Larry King what his decision would be.

In contrast, in the prosecution of Casey Anthony for the murder of her son, another trial that captured national attention, Judge Belvin Perry was widely praised for his handling of the trial.

It was no easy task as lawyers for both sides did their best to cultivate the media and repeatedly clashed in court, prompting Judge Perry to threaten to fine both defense attorneys, Jose Baez and Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton if they continue to act unprofessionally in court.

Regarding the safety of jurors and the potential impact of televised trials on their verdict, courts already have mechanisms in place to address these concerns. Jury sequestration has been around since the trial of British soldiers for the Boston Massacre in 1760. The jury in the prosecution of mobster John Gotti was impeached. Jurors were identified only by number in court.

There is no reason that issuing an indictment of Donald Trump would necessarily defeat these protections. The court may impose conditions such as the use of a stationary camera focused on the judge and the witness stand to prevent jurors’ faces from being shown on television, or the attorney’s grandstanding. Of course, none of the skills are foolproof. Even though there are no cameras in the courtroom, jurors can be photographed going to and from the courthouse.

It is unlikely that any federal judge presiding over Mr. Trump’s trial would engage in the kinds of shenanigans that Judge Ito did. In fact, federal judges consistently run a very tight ship and behavior by defense attorneys or prosecutors that is often tolerated in state courts can subject a lawyer to discipline, as it turns out. that of some of the lawyers who represented Trump. Some federal districts have local rules that dictate how attorneys behave in court. These rules may require that counsel stand behind the podium when addressing the jury or cross-examining witnesses, prohibit counsel from repeating witnesses’ answers during witness examination, and restrict how the lawyer’s objections. Moreover, federal judges are appointed for life and there is an extensive vetting process that occurs before they even go to the judiciary committee for questioning by senators. Unlike most state courts, where judges are elected, federal judges are chosen not only for their intellect and experience but for their demeanor and discretion.

If it is true that Donald Trump was personally involved in violent efforts to prevent the Senate from declaring Joe Biden president, if it is true that he tried to subvert the election by promoting fraudulent electors and strengthening the Georgia Secretary of State, the evidence of that behavior must be presented to the American Public. The viability of our democracy depends on the legitimacy of our elections. Those who believe the Democrats stole the election may not give up their beliefs, but like Holocaust deniers, they will have a harder time convincing others where the truth is available for anyone to see for themselves.

Moreover, as children listen to what their parents have to say, they are more independent in their thinking.

For that reason, for the next generation of American citizens to make up their own minds about Trump’s culpability, unhindered by second-hand reports and biased opinions, they should have the opportunity to see the evidence for yourself, which can only happen if each of the trials is televised.

Although Rule 53 prohibits televising criminal trials in federal court, the Supreme Court makes the rules and can change the rules, even for a single case. The New York legislature and the governor may enact pending legislation to allow televised trials in New York before the Trumps’ case goes to trial.

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that trials are open to the public. This right does not belong solely to the defendant; it belongs to every American. It is a fundamental protection of our civil liberties. One cannot think of any greater event that calls for an open trial than the prosecution of a former President of the United States. Today, it is no longer enough for trials to be open only to individuals who attend the proceedings in person. It is no longer enough for the public to be limited to second-hand accounts of the trial proceedings by reporters and pundits. For the sake of our democracy, this one time, former President Donald Trump’s trials should be televised so that anyone, anywhere in the country or the world, can see the truth for themselves.

Various sources were used in the preparation of this article, but the content and text were created solely by Jon May and not with any assistance from any artificial intelligence program.

[ad_2]