useapen
2024-05-22 05:36:35 UTC
I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have
seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France,
Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.
But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a
spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the
courthouse yesterday.
The judge in Donald Trumps trial was an absolute tyrant, though he
appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to
be ruling against the defendant at every turn.
Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded
obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including
irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution.
But when the defenses only substantive witness, the experienced attorney
Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court
Justice Juan Merchans rulings, the court went berserk.
Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom
of everyone including the media.
For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most
remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually
threatened to strike all of Costellos testimony if he raised his eyebrows
again.
That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have
denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and
to raise a defense.
It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused
of doing.
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly
improper and unlawful to strike his testimony testimony that undercut
and contradicted the governments star witness.
The judges threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and
petty.
Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed
his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the
defendant.
The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because
the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased
reporting of partisan journalists.
But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists
who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.
I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind
to observe his deep failings.
Even when journalists do report on courtroom proceedings, their accounts
must be taken with a grain of salt. When you watch CNN or MSNBC, you
generally see an account of a trial that never took place.
They spin the events so much that reality is totally distorted.
I experienced that distortion firsthand yesterday, when I saw one of my
former students and research assistants, a CNN legal analyst named Norman
Eisen, during a break and went over to him and asked him about his family.
We chatted for a few minutes in the most friendly way.
But NBC, the Daily Beast and other media decided to make up a story about
the event. They claimed that I had a spat with my nemesis, rather than a
friendly conversation with a former student. Their account was made up,
yet it was circulated through the media.
To his credit, Eisen wrote to the media to correct the account, saying
that the person sitting next to him would confirm the medias false
reporting. I doubt we will see a retraction.
This minor incident is simply the tip of a very large and deep iceberg of
false reporting about the trial that can only occur because the
proceedings are not being televised.
There are television cameras in the courtroom, and they record and
transmit every word, but not to the public; only select reporters in the
overflow room see what the cameras transmit.
There is absolutely no good reason why a trial of this importance, or any
trial, should not be televised live and in real time. Allowing the public
to see their courts in action is the best guarantee of fairness. As
Justice Louis Brandeis wisely said a century ago, Sunlight is the best
disinfectant.
When I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, we used to listen to the colorful
account of Dodger games rendered by Red Barber on the radio.
Occasionally when I went to a game and brought my portable radio, I could
hear how the old redhead, as we called him, colorfully elaborated and
exaggerated what was occurring on the field.
Once television came along and everyone could watch the games live, the
accounts became far more accurate, because we could see everything for
ourselves.
A similar phenomenon would operate if trials were televised; it would
force commentators to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
Today there is no check on partisan reporting of trials and exaggerations
and personal opinions are rampant.
The American public is the loser.
Alan Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.
https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-
judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/
seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France,
Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.
But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a
spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the
courthouse yesterday.
The judge in Donald Trumps trial was an absolute tyrant, though he
appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to
be ruling against the defendant at every turn.
Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded
obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including
irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution.
But when the defenses only substantive witness, the experienced attorney
Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court
Justice Juan Merchans rulings, the court went berserk.
Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom
of everyone including the media.
For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most
remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually
threatened to strike all of Costellos testimony if he raised his eyebrows
again.
That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have
denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and
to raise a defense.
It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused
of doing.
Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly
improper and unlawful to strike his testimony testimony that undercut
and contradicted the governments star witness.
The judges threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and
petty.
Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed
his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the
defendant.
The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because
the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased
reporting of partisan journalists.
But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists
who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.
I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind
to observe his deep failings.
Even when journalists do report on courtroom proceedings, their accounts
must be taken with a grain of salt. When you watch CNN or MSNBC, you
generally see an account of a trial that never took place.
They spin the events so much that reality is totally distorted.
I experienced that distortion firsthand yesterday, when I saw one of my
former students and research assistants, a CNN legal analyst named Norman
Eisen, during a break and went over to him and asked him about his family.
We chatted for a few minutes in the most friendly way.
But NBC, the Daily Beast and other media decided to make up a story about
the event. They claimed that I had a spat with my nemesis, rather than a
friendly conversation with a former student. Their account was made up,
yet it was circulated through the media.
To his credit, Eisen wrote to the media to correct the account, saying
that the person sitting next to him would confirm the medias false
reporting. I doubt we will see a retraction.
This minor incident is simply the tip of a very large and deep iceberg of
false reporting about the trial that can only occur because the
proceedings are not being televised.
There are television cameras in the courtroom, and they record and
transmit every word, but not to the public; only select reporters in the
overflow room see what the cameras transmit.
There is absolutely no good reason why a trial of this importance, or any
trial, should not be televised live and in real time. Allowing the public
to see their courts in action is the best guarantee of fairness. As
Justice Louis Brandeis wisely said a century ago, Sunlight is the best
disinfectant.
When I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, we used to listen to the colorful
account of Dodger games rendered by Red Barber on the radio.
Occasionally when I went to a game and brought my portable radio, I could
hear how the old redhead, as we called him, colorfully elaborated and
exaggerated what was occurring on the field.
Once television came along and everyone could watch the games live, the
accounts became far more accurate, because we could see everything for
ourselves.
A similar phenomenon would operate if trials were televised; it would
force commentators to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
Today there is no check on partisan reporting of trials and exaggerations
and personal opinions are rampant.
The American public is the loser.
Alan Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.
https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-
judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/