Welcome to the official website of Jim Brown - NEW COLUMNS appear each Monday!
This site is part of Brown Publications and The Lisburn Press
You are visiting my site on: March 5, 2024


Jim Brown Audio Player
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Monday, September 18th, 2023


President Donald Trump faces four different criminal trials in the coming months. Should each of these trials be televised for the public to watch and judge? The Supreme Court has stood steadfastly against letting the public watch the cases argued before them, even though the court’s decisions can often have major implications for every American. The Constitution guarantees that trials are public and open to everyone. So what could be more public than televising the former president’s criminal trials for the whole world to see?

The criminal justice system could use some help. A majority of Americans feel that justice often does not prevail. A nationwide poll by the respected Rasmussen Reports found that 45% of Americans feel that the justice system is unfair.   Only 34% felt that the system is unbiased.  That’s a lot of cynicism. Maybe more public trials would help skeptics gain more confidence in a system where many feel over half the time that justice is not served.

America has a strong tradition of public trials. In early colonial America, courthouses were the centers of community life, and most citizens regularly attended criminal trials. In fact, trials frequently became community events. Citizens were knowledgeable about trials, and there was wide participation in the process, especially in rural America where prosecutions were often scheduled on market day, when local farmers came to town for supplies. Many courtrooms were built to accommodate 300 or more observers.

Back then, citizens closely observed the defendants, knew when judges issued ridiculous rulings, and saw firsthand whenever justice was perverted. Whatever happened, the citizens were there, watching.  The court system belonged to them. The televising of criminal trials would merely be an extension of this direct review by the average citizen.

Would televising criminal trials create a circus atmosphere? There’s no reason to think that they would. In fact, many of our most sacred ceremonies, including church services and inaugurations, are televised without dignity being lost. Judge Burton Katz said it well: “We should bring pressure to bear on all judges to open up their courtrooms to public scrutiny. Members of the judiciary enjoy great entitlements and wield enormous power. They bear close watching by an informed public. I guarantee that the public would be amazed at what goes on in some court rooms.”

 The trials of the former President would garner huge TV ratings, just like the Watergate Hearings and the O.J. Simpson trial. Over 150 million viewers, 57 % of the country, watched the live verdict of the Simpson trial.

Back in 1997 when I was a practicing attorney in Louisiana, I participated in the state’s first televised trial before the Louisiana Supreme Court. A state senator was opposing my authority to impound the automobiles of uninsured drivers.  I was the elected state Insurance Commissioner at the time, and represented the state in our effort to uphold the impoundment law. The issue was important to the vast majority of Louisianans, and I strongly felt that the public was entitled to hear the arguments and watch the trial in progress.  No one pandered to the cameras, and the entire courtroom procedure was straightforward and dignified Despite a strongly emotional and controversial issue at stake, the proceedings were televised without a hitch.

Harvard law professor and criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz put it this way: “Live television coverage may magnify the faults in the legal system and show it warts and all. But in a democracy, the public has the right to see its institutions in operation, close-up.  Moreover, live television coverage generally brings out the best, not the worst in judges, lawyers, and other participants.  The video camera helps to keep the system honest by keeping it open.”

America prides itself in being an open society that protects and encourages the public’s right to know. Too often, courtrooms have become bastions of secrecy where the public has little understanding of how the system works and how verdicts are reached.

The video camera serves as a check and balance.  We can better keep the system honest by keeping it open and easily available to the public. It’s time to turn on the cameras.

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownla.com. You can also listen to his regular podcast at www.datelinelouisiana.com.





1 Response
  1. Tough question. I find it difficult to believe that “the average bear,” without a law degree or trial experience, and only watching bits and pieces, would be able to make heads nor tails of the court proceedings. If televised it would simply be an attempt for network ratings. Everything else is televised. Pourquoi pas? Are court proceedings televised in other western countries?

Leave a Reply