Wrote Trump's defense attorneys, quoted in "'Travesty in darkness': Trump backs drive to televise his D.C. election subversion trial
Trump, who is facing four criminal prosecutions as well as several civil lawsuits, has been trying in recent weeks to leverage those proceedings to amplify his message to voters."
The five-page submission to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan makes no mention of a federal court rule that has been in place for decades prohibiting broadcasting of criminal court proceedings.
Here's the government's filing, which relies on the rule (Rule 53). I see that NBCUniversal's argument is based on a strict reading of the text of the rule, which prohibits "broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom." They want to video the proceedings, send that video to a studio, and from there distribute the video to the public.
ADDED: Here's NBCUniversal's motion. It also argues that Rule 53 doesn't prohibit the court to make its own video (and provide it to news media). In addition, NBCUniversal argues that Rule 53 is unconstitutional as applied in this case. The right asserted is the public's right of access to criminal trials.
Posts
36 comments:
A "burden"... burden is aborted... dies at the twilight fringe... in darkness... in a back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP.
The sunlight as disinfectant argument is a good one, the stare decisis argument is not- there's so much unprecedented about this...
Obvious, but worth saying even still, it seems that Trump's defense attorneys crafted that phrase to put the WaPo in an awkward position, given its official slogan that "Democracy Dies in Darkness." Or maybe that was referred to in the link. Comment sections die through not clicking through the links provided.
"Bombastic". Politico is just part of the Indigo Blob, that mix of vaguely left-leaning journalism that is so much more nuanced than Fox.
Who was defrauded? What bank?
Well, we've reached the point where Biden has to remain in office so he can continue to protect his family from the well-deserved consequences of their unrelenting criminality. And Trump has to win or the Soros gang will use the corrupt legal system to destroy him. Push is coming to shove.
Its a rule, not law. Judges hiding behind a ruling, so their demeanor in court can be hidden.
Lots of hiding, for system supposedly designed to limit the scope of the Federal government. Favoring the accused.
Which is better for the accused?
Too bad nobody has figured out a way to sneak a little camera in.
"I stand with Israel" - Wrong trial!
Let's have a show of hands:
How many think Judge Chutkan will grant this motion if she thinks it will favor the defense?
C'mon, hold 'em up higher. I can't see any.
Live broadcasting of these trials will serve as an "Infomercial" for Trump.
Letting NBC video the proceedings, them take them back to their Democrat loving dungeon for selective editing before release would be a mistake.
Trump has no interest in the trial being televised. He’s just plotting his next faux victimhood fundraiser. Trump is like a houseplant — he would die if no one paid attention to him.
Broadcasting and photographing criminal proceedings in federal courts is prohibited under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure #53 as amended in 2002.
See, e.g., United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1279, n. 5 (11th Cir. 1983) (television proceedings prohibited); United States v. McVeigh, 931 F. Supp. 753 (D. Colo. 1996) (release of tape recordings of proceedings prohibited). Given modern technology capabilities, the Committee believed that a more generalized reference to “broadcasting” is appropriate.
That's, uh - that is all, folks. Just fact-checked! Another Trump lie.
The judges are hiding the lawfare in their own court rooms.
Gee, guess it was a tactical mistake to charge Trump with unprecedented and tenuously defined crimes in an all in assault on our political system.
Rule 53. Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom. (As amended Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)
See, e.g., United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1279, n. 5 (11th Cir. 1983) (television proceedings prohibited); United States v. McVeigh, 931 F. Supp. 753 (D. Colo. 1996) (release of tape recordings of proceedings prohibited). Given modern technology capabilities, the Committee believed that a more generalized reference to “broadcasting” is appropriate.
If it doesn't fit, you must acquit
Conduct the trial in moonlight as a compromise.
"See, e.g., United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1279, n. 5 (11th Cir. 1983) (television proceedings prohibited); United States v. McVeigh, 931 F. Supp. 753 (D. Colo. 1996) (release of tape recordings of proceedings prohibited). Given modern technology capabilities, the Committee believed that a more generalized reference to “broadcasting” is appropriate."
The linked filing from the govt discusses those cases. They're not binding precedent. But obviously, it will be difficult to get around Rule 53, and the argument I outlined in the post would completely undercut Rule 53.
There's another argument the govt addresses, which is that Rule 53 is unconstitutional as applied in this case. The right asserted is the public's right of access to criminal trials. It's a difficult argument to make. I'm just sketching out that an argument has been articulated. The article I linked to seemed to criticize Trump's filing for making no mention of Rule 53. But NBCUniversal made the argument.
Here's NBCUniversal's motion.
Citizens pay for the fucking courts in the first place.
We should be able to access every trial, big or small, via live streaming.
How is this hard?
It would be like going to a strip club, buying overpriced beer, and having the strippers get naked behind a screen.
"Hey, where are the naked girls!"
"Oh, they're naked, you just aren't allowed to see them..."
Another argument NBCUniversal makes is that Rule 53 doesn't prohibit the court to make its own video (and provide it to news media). The rule only says the court "must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."
This is clearly Trump's grand strategy. I followed the (BS) NY fraud trial and it is very clear. He and his lawyers are not defending charges. They are campaigning. Bold strategy. We'll see if it pays off, as they say.
You don't seem to know the difference between "secret" and "not televised.” Nothing about it is secret. The courtroom is filled with press and is open to the public. There is a audio recording of every moment, and every moment is transcribed.
If the government is so sure their case is bullet proof they wouldn't argue against televising the trial. As for NBC, they have been proven to lie in the past so unless the coverage is live, their broadcasting wouldn't be credible. Since the public has a right to witness the trial, if the court can't provide adequate seating for all who wish to attend, it should provide the logical extension of live broadcasting without any editing.
It seems like the rule against televising is for the protection of defendants (or perhaps victims and relatives) and ought to be waivable by defendants.
The dignity of the court and/or the protection of the prosecution seem like rather flimsy principles when balanced against the First Amendment, especially in a case of such major political significance.
Every time I read about what Trump is doing in these trials, I think of the trial of the Chicago Seven, which was used by the hippie, Yippie, and Black Panther defendants to present their cases against America and the judicial system. At least this judge is smart enough not to bind and gag Trump.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibitions/drawing-justice-courtroom-illustrations/about-this-exhibition/political-activists-on-trial/bobby-seale-bound-and-gagged/
well there are no actual charges to contest, just insinuations,
If I remember right a same sex marriage case went to trial in federal court where some anti-marriage witnesses objected to being filmed. A court-approved stipulation compromised that the testimony would be videotaped for use by the court only. Later, motions were made to allow release of the tapes. An order allowing release was reversed on appeal. The issue was relitigated over the years, and recently with the passage of much time the right to release the tapes prevailed over witness rights. (At one point celebrities conducted public readings of the transcripts.) Dunno if witnesses have such rights in criminal trials.
Trump is like a houseplant — he would die if no one paid attention to him.
So why are you and your fellow leftists so desperate to put him in jail?
Because if you don't have Trump to flog, you'll have to run on what a great job Biden's doing?
gadfly said...
"Rule 53. Courtroom Photographing and Broadcasting Prohibited
Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom. (As amended Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)
See, e.g., United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278, 1279, n. 5 (11th Cir. 1983) (television proceedings prohibited); United States v. McVeigh, 931 F. Supp. 753 (D. Colo. 1996) (release of tape recordings of proceedings prohibited). Given modern technology capabilities, the Committee believed that a more generalized reference to “broadcasting” is appropriate."
Where have you been Gadfly --- the Roberts Court has ruled that stare decisis doesn't apply anymore.
Maybe that explains courtroom sketchy artists
You just know that they'll get the artist who did that Tom Brady sketch to do Trump.
yeah sure trump wants all the world to see Smiths bag of goodies! trump knows they cant and wont televise the event.Just more heavy bluster,he knows president Obama set him up.The poor fella is mental...
I’m totally opposed to video coverage of trials and appeals. We want to keep the mob passions out of courtrooms. That goes for the anti-Trump mob as well as the pro-Trump mob. Say no to “mob” justice.
Recorded today to show after the kangaroo court has screwed the man. After the show trial is over.
Post a Comment