Strictly Legal: Jury selection in Trump trial open to the public – The Cincinnati Enquirer

Jack Greiner| Cincinnati Enquirer

Former President Donald Trump is a defendant in an action brought in a trial court in New York (for some reason, the trial court in New York is called the New York Supreme Court I dont get it). The plaintiffs are a group of human rights activists who share a Mexican heritage.They claim they were violently attacked by Trumps security guards as they lawfully assembled in front of Trump Tower in Manhattan.NPR and The Washington Post recently sent a letter to the court asking that they be permitted to attend jury selection in the case. I cant blame them for the request.It should be interesting if not downright entertaining.The court correctly determined that the public and press should be permitted to attend the jury selection. In doing so, the court noted that the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the public has a right to attend criminal trials. And while the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the public has a right to attend civil trials (like this one), the Supreme Court has noted, historically both civil and criminal trials have been presumptively open. The trial court also noted that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which applies to federal cases in New York, has ruled that the public has a First Amendment right of access not only to criminal trials, but to civil trials and their related proceedings and records.The trial court also noted that jury selection is an integral part of the trial. It alluded to a myriad of cases that hold that only a compelling need can justify closing jury selection.The court is obligated to balance the public interest in the jury selection process against any other compelling interest that would justify closing the process to the public.In this case, the trial court had little difficulty finding a public interest in the trial given that it involves the former president of the United States. And it found no compelling reason to shut out the public. It held that [t]he present case concerns allegations of assault and destruction of property, which in themselves do not implicate any privacy concerns which would require restricting public access. It went on to find that "there is no legitimate reason to conclude that public observation of the jury selection or of the trial will result in unfair or unwarranted embarrassment or prejudice to any person."The court also noted, there is no showing that the fact that one of the defendants in this case is the former President will inhibit the candor of the prospective jurors. Instead, it may be fairly stated that the former President engenders strong responses from the public in all that he does, and that the public has no inhibitions in expressing its opinions on the subject of the former President, pro or con.So heres a win for the media.But not a complete victory.While the trial court allowed the media and the public to observe the jury selection, it prohibited "electronic broadcasting or other transmission to the public or radio or television signals from the courtroom, the recording of sound or light in the courtroom for later transmission or reproduction, the taking of motion pictures in the courtroom by the news media, or the taking of still pictures." But even with these restrictions, the public has the ability to be informed about the jury selection here, as it deserves to be.

Jack Greiner is a partner at the Graydon law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.

Here is the original post:
Strictly Legal: Jury selection in Trump trial open to the public - The Cincinnati Enquirer