Cameras in the Courtroom

I read all the updates from the reporters in the court room. But it just isn't the same as watching it yourself.

I want to actually see it. I want to see how Donald Trump reacts when he hears his former aides testify. I want to hear for myself the testimony of the witnesses against him, and the cross-examination. I want to judge for myself what the judge has to say about Trump's violation of the gag order.

You can watch pundits talk about the trial 24/7 on cable news, from whatever perspective you choose. But most of them only know what I know, from reading the updates from the limited number of reporters lucky enough to secure access to seats in the courtroom. They aren't seeing and hearing what is really going on.

There is no reason why we should still be stuck in the past getting our news secondhand rather than seeing it for ourselves.

The old fear was that cameras would somehow turn courtrooms into circus tents and undermine the seriousness of what was going on or that lawyers would pay too much attention to the cameras. That makes no sense. What we see instead of the serious goings-on in the courtroom is the circus outside, when Trump sounds off to the press. What sense does that make?

The judicial system has been politicized, unfortunately. The answer to restoring confidence is sunshine -- to actually let people see and hear what is going on inside, and judge for themselves.

This is a historic event. A former president and one of two men who will be our next president is standing trial. Whether and how the public responds to the trial and its verdict will shape history. Trump has done everything he can to put off any judgment of him, but he found one judge who would have none of it, and insisted that the trial go forward. He is doing everything he can to ensure an orderly process, and by my (secondhand) lights, he is doing a fine job of it. But what do I really know? I've not heard any of it directly.

The one legitimate concern is the jury's anonymity. It would certainly be interesting and illuminating to be able to see how the jury reacts: When I'm involved in trials, I watch the jury the same way I used to watch the reactions of voters in focus groups. But in the interests of protecting their anonymity, the cameras can be positioned so as to shield the jury from public view. That is a compromise worth making. But it hardly justifies blocking our view of the rest of the proceeding.

Because ultimately, in a trial like this one, there are two juries. The other one, and the one that may count the most in the long run, is the public, the voters, the people who will judge not only if Trump is indeed guilty of the enumerated felonies but if he has the character to be the next president of the United States.

The legal pundits can debate all day about whether Alvin Bragg has legitimately turned misdemeanor violations of falsified business records -- which there seems no question that Trump did -- into felonies by alleging that they were done to interfere with the election. Did he do it to win -- or avoid losing -- women voters, and thus violate election laws, or simply to avoid telling his wife?

Whether or not he was engaged in an unlawful conspiracy or just an ugly cover-up is not only a legal question. For voters, this trial is a measure of character. The judgment voters must make is whether this man has the character to be our next president. To make that judgment based on secondhand reviews is not nearly as fair and effective as it would be if we could literally see what's going on.

========

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.