The case for cameras in federal courthouses

Thom Hartmann -  Donald Trump’s criminal trial in federal court in Florida is scheduled to begin in August, although most likely it’ll be months later, given all the issues around classified documents and Trump’s penchant for delay as a legal strategy. Nonetheless, it’s an historic milestone for both the presidency and our criminal justice system, and the American public deserves to watch it on television, live and in real time.

State courts began to let cameras in the courtroom during the late 20th century and today about two-thirds of the state courts in the country allow, typically on a case-by-case basis, some recording or livestreaming of court proceedings. Federal courts, however, generally prohibit live cameras, a prohibition that extends from District courts all the way up to the Supreme Court. The old objection to recording or carrying proceedings live was always that “lawyers will play to the cameras.” Thirty years of experience with state courts, though, have proven this wrong; there’s no discernable difference between courtroom behavior with or without cameras.

Another objection was that it might subject accused people to unnecessary notoriety by being televised, but mug shots and other evidentiary photos and video are routinely subject to release, either voluntarily or through legal proceedings invoking freedom of information concerns. Cameras in federal courts have been an issue for years, with bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress; they just haven’t yet hit the threshold to make it through both bodies as final legislation.