Trump's lawyers urge judge to deny broadcast of arraignment due to security concerns.
Lawyers representing former President Donald Trump have urged a New York judge to reject a request from media outlets to broadcast his upcoming arraignment on Tuesday, citing potential security risks and the need to maintain an orderly proceeding.
In a letter to Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchant, Trump's attorneys argued that allowing cameras in the courtroom would create "a circus-like atmosphere" and raise "unique security concerns" related to Secret Service issues. They also claimed that video or photography of the proceedings would only heighten these serious concerns.
Todd Blanche, one of the lawyers signing the letter, recently joined the former president's legal team, suggesting a shift in strategy on this issue. This comes as CNN and other media outlets are requesting camera access for Tuesday's arraignment, citing First Amendment rights and the public's right to know about their client's fate.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office has also weighed in, stating that while it defers to the judge's discretion, excluding or restricting videography, photography, and radio coverage could be a defensible exercise of the court's authority. However, they noted that there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes.
In the 2021 arraignment in a tax fraud case against Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg, a similar request for audio-video broadcasting was made and the judge allowed "a limited number of still photographs to be taken prior to the commencement of proceedings." The prosecutors pointed out that this precedent exists, raising questions about whether media outlets should be granted access.
As Trump's arraignment on Tuesday approaches, these conflicting demands highlight the delicate balance between security concerns, First Amendment rights, and the public's interest in following high-profile court cases.
Lawyers representing former President Donald Trump have urged a New York judge to reject a request from media outlets to broadcast his upcoming arraignment on Tuesday, citing potential security risks and the need to maintain an orderly proceeding.
In a letter to Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchant, Trump's attorneys argued that allowing cameras in the courtroom would create "a circus-like atmosphere" and raise "unique security concerns" related to Secret Service issues. They also claimed that video or photography of the proceedings would only heighten these serious concerns.
Todd Blanche, one of the lawyers signing the letter, recently joined the former president's legal team, suggesting a shift in strategy on this issue. This comes as CNN and other media outlets are requesting camera access for Tuesday's arraignment, citing First Amendment rights and the public's right to know about their client's fate.
The Manhattan District Attorney's office has also weighed in, stating that while it defers to the judge's discretion, excluding or restricting videography, photography, and radio coverage could be a defensible exercise of the court's authority. However, they noted that there is no categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes.
In the 2021 arraignment in a tax fraud case against Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg, a similar request for audio-video broadcasting was made and the judge allowed "a limited number of still photographs to be taken prior to the commencement of proceedings." The prosecutors pointed out that this precedent exists, raising questions about whether media outlets should be granted access.
As Trump's arraignment on Tuesday approaches, these conflicting demands highlight the delicate balance between security concerns, First Amendment rights, and the public's interest in following high-profile court cases.
is it really worth risking security for the sake of live streaming? 
Like, we've seen this happen before with high-profile cases, and it always seems to go off without a hitch. I mean, what's the worst that could happen, right? 
But at the same time, the public has a right to know what's going on, you know? It feels like there's gotta be some middle ground here... 
maybe allow still photos or something, but not live video? 
That way everyone wins, I guess. 
he thinks he can just avoid being held accountable by using his rich lawyer friends as a shield 
but honestly i think it's kinda funny how the media outlets are all like "hey we deserve access to this arraignment" 
and the manhattan district attorney's office is all like "yeah we got this, judge" 
it's like they're trying to outdo each other in a big game of courtroom cat and mouse 
. And honestly, I think it'd be kinda interesting to see Trump walk into that courtroom with everyone watchin' 
.
shouldnt they just find a middle ground? 
Security concerns are one thing, but the whole "circus-like atmosphere" thing is just a lazy excuse to stonewall the press 
.
. And security concerns? Come on, it's not like he's gonna escape or anything 
. The thing is, the public has a right to know what's going down in our justice system. Maybe they can find a way to balance both sides - cameras and all that 
Does that mean we get to decide whether or not to let cameras in based on past events? It feels like they're playing both sides of the fence here, which just adds to the drama and intrigue surrounding Trump's arraignment. 
what about the public's right to know? shouldn't they have a say in this too? 
. And what about the public's right to know? It's their tax dollars funding all these investigations and court cases after all... 
I'm not saying cameras should be allowed willy-nilly, but a little accountability never hurt anyone, right? 
