Trump's Lawyers Reject Request to Broadcast Former President's Arraignment in Court, Citing Security Concerns
Lawyers for former US President Donald Trump told a New York judge on Monday that they oppose a request by media outlets to broadcast his arraignment in court. The request was made by CNN and other news organizations seeking access to the proceedings via live video transmission.
According to the Trump team's letter, denying the request would prevent a "circus-like atmosphere" from developing during the arraignment, raise unique security concerns, and go against President Trump's presumption of innocence. They pointed out that any video or photography of the proceeding could heighten these serious concerns, particularly due to Secret Service-related issues.
In contrast, the Manhattan District Attorney's office also responded to the news outlets' request but ultimately deferred to the judge to decide how best to manage his courtroom. The district attorney noted that it would be a defensible exercise for the court to exclude or restrict videography, photography, and radio coverage of the arraignment in the interest of avoiding potential prejudice to the defendant.
However, the prosecutors also acknowledged that there does not appear to be a categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes and case law. They pointed out that a similar request for audio-video broadcasting was made for a 2021 arraignment in another case involving Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg.
Judge Juan Merchant will have to decide how to proceed with the request, balancing the need for transparency and media access against concerns about security and fairness during the proceeding.
Lawyers for former US President Donald Trump told a New York judge on Monday that they oppose a request by media outlets to broadcast his arraignment in court. The request was made by CNN and other news organizations seeking access to the proceedings via live video transmission.
According to the Trump team's letter, denying the request would prevent a "circus-like atmosphere" from developing during the arraignment, raise unique security concerns, and go against President Trump's presumption of innocence. They pointed out that any video or photography of the proceeding could heighten these serious concerns, particularly due to Secret Service-related issues.
In contrast, the Manhattan District Attorney's office also responded to the news outlets' request but ultimately deferred to the judge to decide how best to manage his courtroom. The district attorney noted that it would be a defensible exercise for the court to exclude or restrict videography, photography, and radio coverage of the arraignment in the interest of avoiding potential prejudice to the defendant.
However, the prosecutors also acknowledged that there does not appear to be a categorical prohibition on cameras during an arraignment under existing New York statutes and case law. They pointed out that a similar request for audio-video broadcasting was made for a 2021 arraignment in another case involving Trump Organization and its CFO Allen Weisselberg.
Judge Juan Merchant will have to decide how to proceed with the request, balancing the need for transparency and media access against concerns about security and fairness during the proceeding.
The fact that lawyers for Donald Trump are rejecting the idea of his arraignment being broadcasted live in court just raises more questions 
... Like, isn't an arraignment a pretty public event already? 
Not to mention the security concerns, but can't they just, I don't know, make sure Secret Service is present and secure? 
It feels like they're trying to create some kind of mystery around it, but really, shouldn't we be able to see how justice is being served? 
The Trump team's all worried about security concerns but is it really that bad to have some cameras in the room? And what about us, the public, getting to see how this whole thing goes down? 
, i feel like something out of a movie, can't they just let us see what's going on in that court? it's not like trump hasn't made headlines enough already... i'm all for transparency but at the same time, i get why there would be security concerns. do you think we'll ever find out what really goes down behind closed doors in those kinda situations? 
security concerns and all that jazz, yeah sure... can't we just have an open court for once?