As the trial of former President Donald Trump for his election conspiracy case looms, there’s a growing debate about whether the proceedings should be televised.
While federal criminal courts have traditionally prohibited cameras or recording devices, the significance of the Trump case has led to calls for exceptions.
Legal experts suggest various options for expanding access to the trial:
1. Audio Coverage: Similar to the live audio streaming of Supreme Court oral arguments during the pandemic, audio coverage could be allowed for certain portions of the trial, such as attorney opening and closing statements.
2. Partial Coverage: Cameras or audio could be permitted for specific parts of the trial, such as opening and closing statements, rather than the entire proceedings.
3. Tape Delay: Similar to the release of audio recordings shortly after oral arguments in the Bush v. Gore case, a tape delay could be implemented to allow for a more controlled release of trial audio.
4. Virtual Courtrooms: Virtual proceedings, already used in Trump’s arraignment, could be expanded to other courthouses around the country, allowing more people to watch remotely.
5. Rule Change: The U.S. Judicial Conference, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the judicial council of the D.C. Circuit could vote to suspend rules prohibiting cameras, paving the way for an exception in the Trump case.
Despite the challenges and precedent against cameras in federal courts, advocates argue that expanded access could provide a more balanced and informed perspective on the trial’s proceedings.
Some legal experts emphasize the need for a strong argument highlighting the exceptional nature of the case to convince the relevant authorities to consider rule changes..