Trump's lawyers push back against media request to broadcast former President's arraignment, citing security concerns.
A New York judge will soon decide whether to allow cameras in the courtroom during Donald Trump's arraignment on charges of hush money payments. Trump's lawyers have submitted a letter to the court opposing the media outlets' request to broadcast the event.
According to Trump's lawyers, allowing live broadcasts would create "a circus-like atmosphere" and raise unique security concerns, given the former president is a high-profile figure. They claim that such coverage would also be inconsistent with Trump's presumption of innocence, as he has maintained his innocence throughout this case.
The lawyers pointed out that the court rules require them to take potential security concerns into account when deciding on broadcast access for the arraignment. In their letter, they stated that any video or photography during the proceedings "would only heighten" these serious concerns and pose an unacceptable risk to participants in the proceeding.
In contrast, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office acknowledged the request but said they are deferring to the judge to decide how best to manage the courtroom. However, their statement also noted that cameras have been allowed during previous arraignments for defendants who did not raise significant security concerns.
The district attorney's office recognized that while there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes and case law, they also pointed out that a similar request was denied in the 2021 tax fraud case against Trump Organization. In this instance, the court allowed only still photographs to be taken prior to proceedings.
It remains to be seen how Judge Juan Merchant will rule on the media's request for access during Tuesday's arraignment.
A New York judge will soon decide whether to allow cameras in the courtroom during Donald Trump's arraignment on charges of hush money payments. Trump's lawyers have submitted a letter to the court opposing the media outlets' request to broadcast the event.
According to Trump's lawyers, allowing live broadcasts would create "a circus-like atmosphere" and raise unique security concerns, given the former president is a high-profile figure. They claim that such coverage would also be inconsistent with Trump's presumption of innocence, as he has maintained his innocence throughout this case.
The lawyers pointed out that the court rules require them to take potential security concerns into account when deciding on broadcast access for the arraignment. In their letter, they stated that any video or photography during the proceedings "would only heighten" these serious concerns and pose an unacceptable risk to participants in the proceeding.
In contrast, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney's office acknowledged the request but said they are deferring to the judge to decide how best to manage the courtroom. However, their statement also noted that cameras have been allowed during previous arraignments for defendants who did not raise significant security concerns.
The district attorney's office recognized that while there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes and case law, they also pointed out that a similar request was denied in the 2021 tax fraud case against Trump Organization. In this instance, the court allowed only still photographs to be taken prior to proceedings.
It remains to be seen how Judge Juan Merchant will rule on the media's request for access during Tuesday's arraignment.
... like, don't they want transparency and all that? It feels like they're just trying to control the narrative and avoid some bad PR 
. And honestly, who wouldn't wanna see their ex-President get judged for their actions in court? 
I mean, it's not like he's getting a slap on the wrist or anything... but still, security concerns are valid, I guess 
. Still curious to see how Judge Juan Merchant rules out on this one 
Meanwhile, I'm sure the cameras aren't already broadcasting live footage of Trump's fancy lawyer outfits... I mean, who needs transparency when you've got "security concerns"? 
It's not like this is just another PR stunt. And honestly, if anyone thinks that Trump's innocent until proven guilty, they're either being very naive or very invested in his narrative... 
Like, come on Trump's lawyers are just trying to make a spectacle out of this thing... "circus-like atmosphere" huh? The guy's got a bad track record of being involved in some pretty shady stuff 
. And security concerns? That's rich coming from the man who once tweeted about how he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and get away with it 
. I mean, I'm all for maintaining order, but let's be real, this is Trump we're talking about... anything short of a free-for-all would be a miracle 
. The judge will probably say yes to cameras, but you can bet your bottom dollar the whole thing will get turned into a PR disaster for whoever loses 
. And honestly, the whole thing sounds like a publicity stunt to me. I mean, what's he got to hide? The whole hush money payments thing is already in the headlines and the world knows about it. It's not like this is some top-secret case or anything 
.
. and honestly, can't we just watch this in peace? like, who cares if it's gonna be a 'circus-like atmosphere' or not? it's not like trump's gonna do anything crazy... or at least, that's what he keeps telling us 
Meanwhile, the prosecutors are all chill about it and say "hey, we've done this before, no big deal." 
According to reports, if there were live broadcasts, they'd need to add over 1,000 additional officers just for security reasons alone! 
That's like adding a whole army of cops to the courtroom! 
It's definitely going to be an interesting decision from Judge Juan Merchant. 
I'm guessing he'll lean towards allowing cameras in to keep things transparent... but we'll see what he decides. 
It's not like they'll be getting a live feed of the whole thing or anything. The prosecutors seem pretty reasonable about deferring to the judge's decision, and I think that's a good call too... ultimately it's up to Judge Merchant to weigh the pros and cons and decide what's best for everyone involved 
It sounds like a pretty dodgy move to me. On the other hand, I get where the prosecutors are coming from too – they don't want things to get out of hand. But shouldn't the public have some say in this too? 
Plus, it's not like he's going to plead guilty or something... (but I know he's gonna deny everything 
. And let's be real, Trump's been caught red-handed multiple times now... how can he really claim innocence at this point? 
Also, I'm surprised prosecutors are deferring to the judge on this one. Don't they want the public to see that their guy is going through an arraignment?