If you follow the MeidasTouch: Ben just announced the following.

[Paper Roses]

A court official has just announced that there will be NO cameras, cell phones or other electronic devices allowed in the court today.

I feel that we the citizens should be allowed to view the proceedings. It was stated that there would be a transcript issued right after the proceedings.

So far it seems Aileen Cannon will be presiding.

[Tommy Carcetti]

1. It's federal court. Cameras have never been allowed.

They actually make people leave their phones at security in some federal courthouses.

It would have been breaking news if it was the opposite.

Cannon will not be presiding over the arraignment/first appearance.

[spooky3]

3. Laurence Tribe weighs in:

Link to tweet

[onenote]

7. Mr. Tribe should go back and re-read the case he cites.

As the Court states at the very outset of its decision: "The narrow question presented in this case is whether the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed under the United States Constitution."

Not allowing cameras or phones in the courtroom doesn't deny the public the right to "attend" criminal trials. The facts of the Richmond Newspapers case involved an order by the judge clearing the courtroom of everyone but the lawyers and witness being questioned.

Should the ban on cameras or phones in the courtroom be lifted? Sure. But the Richmond Newspapers case does not "clearly" hold that cameras and phones must be allowed. Reporters and members of the public aren't being denied access to the courtroom. They can sit in the courtroom, observe the proceedings, and even take notes. It's not the same case as Richmond Newspapers.

This is from the Southern District's webpage:

Due to intense interest, there is not enough courtroom seating to accommodate all journalists. Some seats will be set aside for news organizations that can reach the broadest audience. Any remaining available seats will be assigned through a random drawing among news organizations. Audio-video of the hearing will be available in a spillover room (the central jury room on the 5th floor) with several hundred seats, most of which will be assigned to the media.

[intrepidity]

2. Is MT live streaming? nt

[barbtries]

8. it wouldn't surprise me if they did,

though they won't be able to report any of it in real time. might be worth it to hang out with Ben Micielas (I'll never get his name right i know) and mike popok.

[inthewind21]

4. No

She won't

[ChoppinBroccoli]

5. There's Nothing To See At An Arraignment Anyway

The Defendant says "Not Guilty" (either himself or through his attorney), they set bond, and say the case will be set for a future date. And that's it. There will be no bombshells. The only shocker would be if he was denied bail, which there is about a less than 1% chance of that happening. The Judge will set a bond, maybe even a high bond, he'll pay it easily and go on his way. Nothing to see here.

In fact, in some courts, entering a Not Guilty plea is so uneventful that an attorney can go in, fill out a Not Guilty FORM, submit it, and the Defendant doesn't even need to show up. These things are really not a big deal.

[barbtries]

6. that last sentence

is the worst of it. the media blackout is actually nothing new for federal court and the judge's decision is not a surprise. the media will be in the courtroom taking notes and reporting immediately following the hearing. i would like to see it too, but this is just kind of the old fashioned way. it's not a unique perk for this particular defendant.

i just recently watched, or listened to, the murder trial of lori daybell. cameras were not allowed in the courtroom and the tapes were released later on each day. within the context, that trial was about as big as this one.

but that judge cannot preside over this case. FFS she'd probably grant the defense's first bogus motion for dismissal, with prejudice. she cannot be trusted with this case no fucking way

[Effete Snob]

9. In other words, it is "Tuesday" in federal court

[Jilly_in_VA]

10. Judge Cannon should, but won't

confiscate the Slobfather's passport. I mean, he's spent his life being a scofflaw, why would he change now?

[lark]

11. The Miami Herald announced it would not be her today.

The less I hear from her the better.

[ificandream]

12. You can bet the Orange Idiot will step in front of the cameras.

He loves publicity.