Jill Wine-Banks: Put cameras in court for Trump's federal trials

As one of the prosecutors in the Watergate obstruction of justice trial including then-President Nixon as an alleged co-conspirator, I know the value of the public seeing the testimony and evidence themselves — as they did in the Ervin Committee hearings.

Now it’s time for cameras to capture the two upcoming federal trials of former president Trump on serious felony charges in which all Americans’ right to have all votes counted and our national security are at issue. Televising his trials would go a long way toward public understanding of the evidence, valuing the justice system and accepting the verdicts — whatever they are.

Unfortunately, cameras are prohibited in federal courts by antiquated rules that are inconsistent with the results of pilot projects testing cameras in federal courts and with the routine use of cameras in state courts, as well as with modern technology and COVID-era use of teleconferencing for trials and appellate arguments, including audio arguments in the Supreme Court.

Cameras are no longer large clunky intrusions in court. They are inconspicuously placed, often unseen and unnoticed. And, with everyone now used to ubiquitous cameras capturing our every move, we no longer change our behavior in response to them.

The televised trial of Derek Chauvin, the former police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd, proves my point and eviscerates the most frequent arguments against cameras in trials — that lawyers will play to the cameras, and that witnesses will be nervous and appear less credible.

The Chauvin trial was dignified. No one played to the cameras. Witnesses were calm and forthright. And, the criminal conduct at issue demonstrates that cameras do not change behavior. If they did, George Floyd would still be alive. Derek Chauvin remained on Floyd’s neck despite knowing an onlooker and police body cams were recording him.

In today’s world, where everyone has a phone to watch televised proceedings in real time, seeing Trump’s trials should not require being in D.C. or Florida and standing in line for hours to get one of the few prized seats. That is a deprivation of the right to a public trial, a right that inures to the benefit of the defendant and the public. This is especially true in a trial where we are all victims of the alleged scheme to keep the real winner of the election from being inaugurated.

Another argument against cameras, specifically in the Trump trials, is that televising his trials would pose a danger to witnesses and jurors. That risk cannot be ignored given the former president’s verbal threats and the physical violence we have seen in response, but, judges can control that risk.

Jurors can remain anonymous by the court prohibiting showing the jury, as was done in Chauvin’s trial.

The risk to witnesses who testified before cameras in the Jan. 6 commitee hearings will not be increased by televising the trial because they are already publicly recognized. For witnesses new to the public, cameras could blur their faces if they are afraid.

No reporters’ soundbites and no expert legal analysis — not mine or that of any of the best legal analysts on any channel — can replace cameras. Watching the evidence unfold lets viewers form independent, evidence-based evaluations of Trump’s guilt or innocence in ways that reporting does not.

Trump is a once and possibly future president and, before voting, Americans should see the same witnesses and legally admissible evidence as the jury, including cross examination. The defendant’s lawyer said he wants cameras and certainly the press and public want that, whether to see the evidence or to criticize it — and there are no valid arguments against televising Trump’s trial.

So, what needs to happen for Trump’s trials to be televised?

Justice Roberts and the Judicial Conference or Congress must create an exception to the Judicial Conference rules and Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal. This is an opportunity for the federal courts to finally join the modern world and abandon a rule from 1946, as well as to increase public acceptance of the facts.

These trials and our democracy deserve no less.

If you agree that televising Trump’s trials is the way to an informed electorate and public acceptance of the verdict by the majority of Americans, you can write to your congressman, senator or Chief Justice Roberts.

Jill Wine-Banks is a former Watergate prosecutor, author, analyst and co-host of the #SistersInLaw and iGen Politics podcasts.