I don’t doubt Trump may try. But I think it’s more likely the judge is signalling his growing impatience with the Trump team’s delay tactics. The only place to appeal is SCOTUS, and I doubt they’ll take it up.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
@Aspenglow , you have a lot of experience in courts. Do you think that if Trump is indicted on anything, whether in New York or Georgia or DC or anywhere, we will see TV of it? Or will it be courtroom sketches and after-the-fact reporting?
I’d like to see Trump in court, but IAAL, and first appearances (as we call them) or arraignments (as you call them) typically have no need for TV coverage. Interested in your opinion on the question.
Looking at the thread title, this may be a hijack, so if it is, could you move it to a more appropriate thread?
I think this is an issue that will apply to any of the several threads we have going re Trump prosecutions, so no reason we can’t discuss this here. It’s relevant to this case as much as any other.
The short answer is, I don’t know. We’re in uncharted territory. Each venue will have local rules, customs and practices. My guess is they will follow those as much as possible, but there will be accommodations made due to Trump’s stature as a former president and his secret service detail, etc.
In the courts where I worked, arraignments were occasionally filmed if it was a high profile defendant. Interested media were required to file a request in advance of the proceeding which the judge would either grant, deny or modify. I expect most courts will have some similar process.
I believe – and there are actual lawyers here on the board (unlike me) who are more familiar with the practices of the federal circuit court and can confirm or refute – that the DC Circuit only allows sketches. I can’t see why they would change their practice for this case.
Re Fulton County, GA, and the Manhattan DA’s Office, I have no idea. We’ll know soon.
I will mention that it’s very, very important for courts to control their courtrooms and the media. Everyone remembers the OJ Simpson/Michael Jackson cases and what a circus those turned into. Judges must balance the public’s need to know against such things as maintaining courtroom decorum, managing courtroom security and protecting jurors, etc. Courtroom security concerns are going to be insane for all these proceedings when they get underway.
One solution we used for high profile cases in the courts where I worked was to allow a pool camera, so we only had to worry about 1 crew filming for all the television networks. We left it up to the various media people to pick their 1-camera pool crew. Then that crew would coordinate with us each day re placement of the camera, etc. That worked pretty well.
Well, hey, I’m an actual lawyer here on the board. Just not licensed to practice in any of the 50 states. (Only in Alberta, Canada, but also licensed to practice before before the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada.)
But I thank you for your remarks, which clarify things for me. I guess we’ll see if Trump is filmed on his first appearance (sorry, arraignment). Either way, by courtroom sketches or live TV, and if nothing more than a Not Guilty plea or an Adjournment plea, it would be worth watching.
Hey, it seems that both you and I are fans of watch-along threads, if I remember correctly.
As far as I’m aware, New York does not allow cameras in any of its courtrooms.
EDIT: Google is giving me conflicting answers. On the one hand, the top Google answer says cameras are completely banned. But then a little further down in the Google results, it says 47 states allow cameras except…and then it lists three states and the District of Columbia. Interestingly, New York is not one of those three states listed.
A different answer details what cameras are allowed in New York appellate courts.
As best I can tell, no cameras in New York trial courts or anywhere in DC.
Here in NYC, you don’t mess with the sketch-artists union.
with every report i get more and more impressed by jack smith. this lightening round appeal is fascinating. trump is shedding lawyers faster than lager sheds fur.
Remind me not to ask for a beer next time I’m at your house.
You’ve never drank the hair of the dog that bit you?
I have, but I’d much rather dirink the tears of my enemy. I’m hoping that there will soon be an abundance of those, they are so sweet!
That’s very impressive!
I didn’t realize you were an attorney. You rarely speak in those terms on the board that I’ve noticed. I try to not opine on legal issues (or if I do, I make sure to note IANAL), but legal process and procedure in a courtroom, I’m your girl.
100% true. 
in this case it would be the hair of the white cat next to my name.
trump may get the delays he wants and more and more of his lawyers have to drop away, or testify against him.
As of right now (appeal is quite likely), Evan Corcoran will have to testify about Trump/Mar-A-Lago/documents under the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege:
Corcoran is scheduled to appear on Friday barring an appeal to Supreme Court. Thurs and fri will be quite the day for lawyers and tea leaves.
That it will. This whole process has been just remarkable. An entire appeals process from district court to circuit court and ruling in three days.
Rumor has it that Trump doesn’t want to appeal to SCOTUS. Sounds like he’s still stinging over their handling of the Judge Cannon debacle.
Jack Smith’s documents case is moving quick now!
"Litigation at Warp Factor 1, Mr Sulu.‘’
“Aye, aye, Captain.”
LOL, yes!!
“Set phasers on ‘convict’.”
Send down a few redshirts to be shot by the MAGAts, before Kirk et al. deploy phasers on stun.
I’m now visualizing a Gorn with a bad blonde wig.