Donald Trump indictment: Federal criminal trials won’t be televised under updated rules

MCCARTHY ANNOUNCES IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY INTO PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN

The rules will “permit judges presiding over civil and bankruptcy cases to provide the public live audio access to non-trial proceedings that do not involve witness testimony,” according to a press release. It furthered that “the change approved Tuesday does not extend to criminal proceedings.”

Such rule changes mark a slight nudge forward for transparency in the federal court system as dozens of House Democrats and some Republicans have called on the body to make limited exceptions for cameras in the federal district court, specifically over Trump’s criminal cases over alleged attempts to subvert the 2020 election results and alleged mishandling of classified documents.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Lavenski Smith, a President George W. Bush appointee who is chairman of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, said there was no discussion about whether to allow the streaming of Trump’s forthcoming trials, according to a statement after the meeting.

“The conference itself did not take that specific request,” Smith said. “The answer to that question at present is controlled by federal rules that prohibit cameras in criminal proceedings under Rule 53, and unless actions are taken to modify that rule, that will be the status of things.”

Trump is slated to head to trial in the election subversion case on March 4. His trial over the mishandling of classified information is scheduled for May 20.

Although Trump’s federal criminal trials will not be livestreamed, Trump could face the cameras during his Fulton County racketeering trial over attempts to subvert the election in Georgia. The former president is currently weighing whether to seek removal of that case to federal court, which would shield the case from cameras if a judge approved his request.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, told the Washington Examiner that the policymaking body’s decision to keep criminal trial access in-person wouldn’t necessarily preclude a district court from deciding to allow remote access to a criminal proceeding in the future, though it certainly marks a blow to lawmakers who sought to have their request greenlighted by its members.

“[Smith’s] just saying, ‘We’re not going to do something affirmative about that.’ But I don’t know that that’s necessarily the last word,” Tobias said.

In March, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2023, which would give federal judges the discretion to allow cameras in the courtroom while protecting the identities of witnesses and jurors when necessary. No further action has been taken on the legislation since its introduction.

The 26-member administrative body known as the Judicial Conference convened at an undisclosed room in the high court on Tuesday. Chief Justice John Roberts presides over the meetings, which take place in March and September each year.

The meeting also comes at a time when its members have expressed “deep concern” about pending congressional appropriations legislation over funding for the judicial branch, according to an Aug. 1 press release.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Smith said that the funding concerns weren’t raised on Tuesday but that it remains a “matter of concern” to ensure that the judicial branch has the resources it needs to bolster cybersecurity protocols, the physical safety of court officers, and minimize any impact on court-appointed legal representation, which is given to more than 90% of federal criminal defendants.

“Discussions are ongoing with people on Capitol Hill and everyone, both in the third branch and in Congress, are waiting to see just how things play out over the course of the next few weeks,” Smith said in response to a Washington Examiner question.