The big news in New York County court Friday was that Donald Trump was sentenced (to no punishment) by Acting Manhattan state Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, setting him up to be the first-ever convicted felon to assume the presidency. The smaller news, still meaningful, is that the public actually caught glimpses of the proceedings. The court released the full audio of Friday’s sentencing, and daily public transcripts during trial. While welcome, those were mere cracks of light through a door barely ajar, and all too typical of a court system that leaves transparency up to judges.
Under state law — Civil Rights Law § 52 — audio-visual coverage of court proceedings that include witness testimony is fully prohibited, and by default the rest isn’t allowed to be broadcast unless the judge gives special permission.
Yes, the courts are technically public for those who have the time and wherewithal to travel to the court (and can compete for the tiny handful of public seats for the Trump trial), but the rest of us have no way to see them, making a mockery of the Sixth Amendment’s promise of a public trial.
That law should be rewritten as soon as possible. Until then, judges should routinely allow cameras in courtrooms, especially in cases of high public interest like the Trump trial.
The public should see jury selection. Motions. Rulings. Opening arguments. Closing arguments. Jury readbacks. Verdicts. Sentencings. All as they happen, everything but witness testimony. And not because they’re spectacular — but because so often, they’re wonderfully workmanlike and mundane, teaching a terrific lesson about the way this vital branch of government actually operates.
Decades ago, the practice of putting cameras in the courtroom was controversial. When CourtTV premiered, some share of America worried that the flashbulbs might disorient poor blindfolded Lady Justice.
There are 49 other states that allow cameras in court. Only New York says no. Albany’s fear that letting the public see the courts in action will somehow corrupt their basic integrity is at this point positively absurd. A far higher value, in any event, is letting the public understand how prosecutors and defense attorneys build their cases, and how judges and juries come to their conclusions. The same also applies for civil trials, as cameras were barred from the bench trial on the Trump Organization’s phony valuation of its assets.
Think of the Daniel Penny trial: A precious few journalists in the courtroom related the events of each day, leaving the rest of us to form our conclusions based on characterizations rather than the actual facts exposed to the jury..
It would’ve been far better for all New Yorkers to be able to tune in to as much of the trial as possible, formulating their own opinions with as much information as possible.
New York State’s court system is hopelessly complex and intimidating to the general public. It’s difficult and expensive to obtain transcripts. There are 11 different trial courts and multiple levels of appellate courts. The lowest level trial court is oddly called the Supreme Court.
There’ve been countless attempts to make some sense of the tangled mess, all of which have failed, because that’s what almost always happens in Albany.
Given the failure to bring order to the courts, we don’t expect the powers that be to require transparency under law anytime soon. So the least judges can do is use their authority in every possible case to open up their individual courtrooms. Merchan took some baby steps. Going forward, he and everyone else should stride more boldly into the future.
