A Manhattan Supreme Court judge will make a decision on whether to allow cameras and audio recording in the courtroom during Donald Trump's arraignment on Tuesday. The request was made by several media outlets, including CNN.
Lawyers for the former president told the court that broadcasting the arraignment live could create a "circus-like atmosphere" and raise security concerns, citing Secret Service-related issues. They argued that allowing cameras and audio recording would exacerbate these concerns and undermine Trump's presumption of innocence.
However, prosecutors pointed out that there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment in New York law. In fact, a similar request was made for the 2021 arraignment of the Trump Organization's CFO Allen Weisselberg, where a limited number of still photographs were allowed before proceedings began.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office stated that it would defer to the judge's discretion on how to manage the courtroom, but expressed concerns about allowing live coverage. They argued that excluding or restricting videography, photography, and radio coverage could help avoid potential prejudice to the defendant, maintain order, and ensure safety for all parties involved.
A decision is expected soon, with many expecting it to be a close call. Trump's lawyers are pushing back against the media outlets' request, citing concerns about creating an "unusual" atmosphere in the courtroom that could compromise their client's case. The outcome of this case will likely set a precedent for future arraignments and has significant implications for free press access in New York courts.
Lawyers for the former president told the court that broadcasting the arraignment live could create a "circus-like atmosphere" and raise security concerns, citing Secret Service-related issues. They argued that allowing cameras and audio recording would exacerbate these concerns and undermine Trump's presumption of innocence.
However, prosecutors pointed out that there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment in New York law. In fact, a similar request was made for the 2021 arraignment of the Trump Organization's CFO Allen Weisselberg, where a limited number of still photographs were allowed before proceedings began.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office stated that it would defer to the judge's discretion on how to manage the courtroom, but expressed concerns about allowing live coverage. They argued that excluding or restricting videography, photography, and radio coverage could help avoid potential prejudice to the defendant, maintain order, and ensure safety for all parties involved.
A decision is expected soon, with many expecting it to be a close call. Trump's lawyers are pushing back against the media outlets' request, citing concerns about creating an "unusual" atmosphere in the courtroom that could compromise their client's case. The outcome of this case will likely set a precedent for future arraignments and has significant implications for free press access in New York courts.
It's like they're trying to create some kind of spectacle just to get attention. Newsflash, guys: it's an arraignment! It's not like he's walking into a red carpet event or something. I mean, sure, there might be some security concerns, but that's what the Secret Service is for, right? 
. On the other hand, if they do allow it, Trump's team might see their chance to spin things in their favor 
. It's not just about free speech, it's about transparency - that's what this is all about 
. Whatever decision comes out, I'll be keeping an eye on how it plays out 
.
, and they're worried about security issues because of the Secret Service. But prosecutors think that's a load of malarkey 
, and that there's no law that says no cameras should be allowed. They even compared it to when Allen Weisselberg was arraigned last year, where just a few still photos were okay 
.
. Either way, this is going to set a precedent for future arraignments, so we'll just have to wait and see how that plays out 
.
... maybe it's a compromise - like they did with allen weisselberg's arraignment? 
. We should get to see this play out on Tuesday, it'll be super interesting 
it's like something straight outta The Sopranos or Law & Order, you know? I mean, can you imagine watching Trump get arraigned live on TV, with all the cameras and microphones rolling? It'd be crazy! 
Would there be security checks at the door? 
I mean, if it's not gonna hurt anyone's case or compromise the proceedings, why not give the people a glimpse into what's goin' down?
. I mean, come on, it's just a courtroom procedure! Can't we all just chill for once? 
this whole thing feels like such a big production 
, you'd think they're trying to draw more attention away from the real issue at hand – trump's alleged wrongdoing 
. the thought of cameras and audio recording in court is actually kinda necessary for transparency and accountability 
. my heart goes out to trump's lawyers, i know they're worried about security and all that 
️. On the other hand, Trump's lawyers have valid points about it being a circus-like atmosphere and compromising their client's case.
. But if they're not allowed, that raises questions about free press access in New York courts – we need that kind of transparency to hold our leaders accountable 
.
. Maybe there's a compromise, like limited live coverage or something? We'll just have to wait and see what happens on Tuesday 
.