Trump's Mugshot and Public Justice

The Georgia 2020 Trump conspiracy indictments provide a path of openness not present in other cases.

The Constitution speaks of "public" trials and the Supreme Court has found (with a rare instance of the Ninth Amendment actually playing a role) that this includes it being "open to the public." Read about a major case here.

The justices split on what exactly was at stake but the opinion of the court did not say it was merely a press case. The basic principle was that "matters relating to the functioning of government and were enacted against the backdrop of the long history of trials being presumptively open."

Only a few people can directly show up and watch a trial. Technology allows other means, including audio (the Supreme Court now has real-time audio of oral arguments) and video (various courts, but not the Supreme Court, have them). The courts have regularly noted that bare transcripts do not always give a true accounting. It matters if we see things, including when the law is being debated.

There has been a push for Trump's federal trials (two so far) to be televised:

Steven Brill, founder of Court TV, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Saturday that in order for the election conspiracy trial in Washington to be television, the Judicial Conference, which is chaired by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, and the judicial council of the District of Columbia Circuit would have to suspend their own rules, and the Supreme Court would need to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

My thought at this time is "good luck with that," but there should be a bipartisan push in Congress to make it so. If Republicans, as they feign to say, think the process is unfair, why shouldn't it be aired out so that the people can better be aware of what is going on?

It is a bit of a sideshow (though I think it's important), but the hush money case in Manhattan also is not being televised yet:

During Trump’s April arraignment in New York, his lawyers argued against cameras inside the courtroom there saying it would cause a “circus-like atmosphere.” State and local courts have varying rules on cameras. In that case, the judge allowed cameras in the hallways of the courthouse and briefly in the courtroom before the proceedings began.

My understanding is that for now, Georgia will have television. As a preview, each of the defendants had their mugshots (we had a bit of the absurd since the height and weights are not quite accurate) made public.

Now, I agree with those who challenge this as a matter of policy, since the people are legally innocent. I realize, as discussed here, a legal burden of proof is not the same as public opinion. People were not wrong to assume, while being somewhat open to being shown wrong, that O.J. Simpson was guilty.

This is also much more of a concern for the average person, whose face is put in the newspaper probably for the first time. But, if we have it, equal justice warrants it for these defendants. And, for Trump, the permanent badge of infamy is well deserved.

Again, there are various burdens of truth inside and outside the legal system.

Speaking of outside court. For the random person on the street, in various cases, a relatively high standard of proof should be had. Some more details can lead one to feel more assured, though in various cases biases and so on can mislead. Sometimes, it gets to the point where the person is very likely guilty, except maybe for the narrow legal purposes at issue.

It is correct that Jack Smith, Fani Willis, and Alvin Bragg (Manhattan) during their public statements led with the presumption of innocence. It is also correct for us to say, "he's guilty as hell though yeah it might be hard to prove it legally in our system."

As to the rest of us, I think we should generally retain some level of doubt, at the very least regarding what is necessary to prosecute or what punishment is warranted. Certain things, such as freedom of thought, are good things, even if the government is not involved.

Finally, as some noted, Trump purposely posed in his mugshot to send the message challenging the prosecutors and that if he gets the chance, he will get his revenge.

Others (Jenna Ellis, really laying the religion on thick, particularly) had cheerful poses, knowing the photos were public. People might remember Tom DeLay doing that, for those who remember the Bush43 drama.

Other defendants have more pathetic looking mugshots. Trump also came back to Twitter, and posted his mugshot, with a link to donate money. Grifter to the end.

I don't want to make this just about Trump, especially when he is one of nineteen defendants. The issues here are ultimately general and if we are going to spend clearly too much time keeping track of Trump personally, let's try to at least think of the big issues involved.