Trump's Lawyers Oppose Media Coverage of Upcoming Arraignment, Citing Security Concerns.
The lawyers representing former US President Donald Trump have told a New York judge that they oppose a request by media outlets to broadcast his arraignment on Tuesday. The motion, made by CNN and other news organizations, would allow cameras and video crews to be present in the courtroom during the proceeding.
In a letter to Acting New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchant, Trump's attorneys argued that granting access to the media would create a "circus-like atmosphere" at the arraignment, raise unique security concerns, and undermine President Trump's presumption of innocence. They pointed out that there are no specific rules governing the presence of cameras during an arraignment in New York law.
However, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has indicated that it would defer to the judge's decision on the matter. In a statement, the office noted that excluding or restricting media coverage could be "defensible" for reasons such as maintaining order and avoiding potential prejudice to the defendant.
It appears that there is no categorical prohibition against cameras being present during an arraignment in New York law, although the prosecutors acknowledged that a similar request was denied in 2021 for a different case. On that occasion, Judge Merchant allowed limited still photography before the proceedings began.
The decision on Tuesday's arraignment will likely depend on the court's discretion to balance security concerns with the right to a free and public trial.
The lawyers representing former US President Donald Trump have told a New York judge that they oppose a request by media outlets to broadcast his arraignment on Tuesday. The motion, made by CNN and other news organizations, would allow cameras and video crews to be present in the courtroom during the proceeding.
In a letter to Acting New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchant, Trump's attorneys argued that granting access to the media would create a "circus-like atmosphere" at the arraignment, raise unique security concerns, and undermine President Trump's presumption of innocence. They pointed out that there are no specific rules governing the presence of cameras during an arraignment in New York law.
However, the Manhattan District Attorney's office has indicated that it would defer to the judge's decision on the matter. In a statement, the office noted that excluding or restricting media coverage could be "defensible" for reasons such as maintaining order and avoiding potential prejudice to the defendant.
It appears that there is no categorical prohibition against cameras being present during an arraignment in New York law, although the prosecutors acknowledged that a similar request was denied in 2021 for a different case. On that occasion, Judge Merchant allowed limited still photography before the proceedings began.
The decision on Tuesday's arraignment will likely depend on the court's discretion to balance security concerns with the right to a free and public trial.
So like imagine you're in a courtroom and there are no cameras or people watching it on TV... it's kinda weird right? 
I think allowing cameras in would be cool but at the same time, I get why Trump's lawyers are worried about security 
. It's like having a big event and wanting to keep it low key for the defendant.
. Maybe the judge will allow limited cameras or just let people watch it on TV like normal? Either way, I'm curious to see what happens next 
. I mean, can you imagine if the media wasn't allowed to cover it? It would be like they're trying to hide something... which is pretty much what happened with his presidency anyway 
.
Meanwhile, the media outlets are just trying to give the public an update on what's going down. Can't they just have some basic access? This is like taking away the public's right to know what's happening in their country... and all because of Trump's lawyers being paranoid about security concerns? 
I get where Trump's lawyers are coming from though - I wouldn't wanna be a part of some media frenzy either. But at the same time, isn't that kinda what this whole system is supposed to be about: transparency and all that jazz? 
And then there's the security thing... yeah, I can see how that'd be a concern. It's like, you don't wanna have some crazy fan dude jumping up on stage or trying to get Trump's attention during the proceedings. 
But still, it's also kinda cool that we're living in a time where these things are even being debated. I guess it's all about finding that balance between security and freedom of the press. 
. I mean, think about it, an arraignment is basically just a formal meeting where someone's gonna be charged with some crime or whatever. It's not like a presidential inauguration or something that'd warrant a full-on media frenzy. The whole "circus-like atmosphere" thing sounds legit to me 
. And let's be real, Trump's been in this mess for years so I'm pretty sure he can handle being judged by the public without having his every move filmed 24/7 
. Plus, if cameras were allowed, it'd just give him a platform to spin the whole thing and make a big show out of it 
. Just keep it low-key and let justice be served 
.
... I mean, can't they just let the guy walk? No cameras at his arraignment? That's not about security, that's about Trump trying to avoid scrutiny... like he's done with everything else in his life 
.
so unfair! shouldn't we have access to see our government officials being held accountable for their actions? it's like they're trying to control the narrative and hide something... 
. and security concerns? cmon, trump's already been arraigned like five times already 
The judge will probably just have to weigh up the pros and cons, like they did last time with that other case in 2021... but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out 
But I feel them on the security concerns tho - idk how chaotic it could get 
I mean, sure security concerns are valid but can't they just have a designated camera crew and not a whole bunch of paparazzi getting all up in the defendant's grill? 