Free the Trump Trial Transcripts

Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Stefani Reynolds / AFP

The army of everyday New Yorkers summoned to Manhattan Criminal Court at 100 Centre Street for possible jury duty in the matter of People v. Donald Trump represents one of democracy’s miracles: the fact that we empower ordinary citizens to pass judgment on a rich politician who, not long ago, was the most powerful man in the world.

But for the lesson to succeed, and for Donald Trump to get the fair trial he deserves, New York’s institutions — the courts and the media especially — must rise to the occasion by performing at a higher than normal level of skill, energy, and professionalism. And that means fast-tracking some basic improvements to a court system that is confusing, creaky, inefficient, and too insulated from public scrutiny.

Unlike nearly every other state, New York does not allow cameras in the courtroom and also prohibits audio recordings of witness testimony and other proceedings. A brief, decade-long experiment with video recordings ordered by state lawmakers ended in 1997; the Legislature let the law lapse and has failed to revisit the issue. In an era when even the U.S. Supreme Court streams live audio of oral arguments, New York is way behind the times; the official court rules for coverage of People v. Trump allows for about 60 journalists (including two sketch artists) to witness the proceedings with “no video, no photographs, no audio recording.”

Now would be a good time for our state’s chief judge, Rowan Wilson, and his chief administrative judge, Joseph Zayas, to order a onetime exception to New York’s closed-door rule and allow a livestream of audio from what is, by law, a courtroom that is open to the public. More importantly, Wilson and Zayas should suspend New York’s bizarre rules that make it nearly impossible to get a printed transcript of criminal court proceedings.

In New Yor​​k — again, in a departure from the federal system and every other state — official rules state that transcripts of what gets said in court must be purchased from the court stenographers who have the job of recording, on a specialized keyboard, every word, action, and ruling in criminal cases. These court personnel, whose base salaries top $100,000 in many cases, can charge as much as $4.75 a page for transcripts, with the record of a single day of trial easily totaling several hundred dollars — money that goes into the pocket of the employee, not the court. And everyone who needs to see the transcripts — prosecutors, defense attorneys, members of the media, and even the court itself — has to buy transcripts from these workers, even though they are on the public payroll and get health benefits and pensions at public expense. And media organizations are forbidden from jointly purchasing and then publishing the transcripts; each outlet must buy its own copy, and publication is prohibited.

This system should have been scrapped long ago. While compiling accurate official transcripts is a complicated and necessary skill, there is no earthly reason these public accounts of public proceedings should be hawked by court personnel who are already drawing a public salary. Imagine having to pay the $25 fee our Department of Motor Vehicles charges for license plates — only to have the clerk at the desk pocket the money.

The New York Daily News editorial board has been fulminating against this closed, cozy arrangement for years; they should be joined by the Times, the Post, and other media organizations in demanding a onetime exception to the transcript rules. Attorney Nick Akerman, a former Watergate prosecutor, has gone so far as to file a motion with Juan Merchan, the judge hearing People v. Trump, requesting immediate publication of all transcripts. That’s the right idea, one that Wilson and Zayas should take seriously.

That Trump is facing justice at all is itself a victory for the rule of law and the integrity and resilience of our institutions, which pressed on despite the ex-president’s efforts to evade, subvert, and ignore the courts with lies, insults, personal attacks on prosecutors, and even incitements to violence. Trump warned that “death and destruction” would follow if he were indicted, and some of his followers took those words literally. “If you want President Trump come and get me to. [sic] Remember we are everywhere and we have guns,” read one of the 89 death threats aimed at Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg. “Alvin — I’ll kill you,” said a note sent to the prosecutor with a package containing a suspicious white powder.

Trump’s gangster tactics failed. He was booked and fingerprinted without incident last year and must now answer Bragg’s allegation that he falsified business records in order to cover up an alleged sexual affair that might have hurt his election chances in 2016.

Having come this far, the leaders of New York’s courts should embrace the reality that their legacy will include how they handled one of the most important cases in American history — one whose outcome is of intense interest all around the world. Surely now would be the right time to make sure People v. Trump, whatever the outcome, proceeds with maximum transparency and is remembered as a moment of pride, not embarrassment.