Gov - Uscourts.dcd.260552.21.0 6

Case 1:23-mc-00099-TSC Document 21 Filed 11/13/23 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN RE MEDIA APPLICATION FOR

AUDIOVISUAL ACCESS TO TRIAL Case No. 23-mc-99 (TSC)
PROCEEDINGS IN UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA v. DONALD J. TRUMP
IN RE APPLICATION OF
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC TO Case No. 23-mc-107 (TSC)
PERMIT VIDO AND AUDIO OF TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS IN UNITED STATES v.
DONALD TRUMP
UNITED STATES’ REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT DONALD J. TRUMP’S RESPONSE TO APPLICATIONS TO
BROADCAST THE CRIMINAL TRIAL OF UNITED STATES v. TRUMP
On November 3, 2023, the United States filed its opposition (ECF No. 16) to applications
by a coalition of media organizations for relief clearly foreclosed under Rule 53 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure—to record and televise the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump
(“defendant”). On November 10, the defendant responded (ECF No. 19) in support of the
applications. The defendant’s response does not cite a single rule or case in support of his position,
because there are none. Instead, decrying the alleged unfairness of the unequivocal and
constitutionally-sound broadcast prohibition that has governed federal criminal trials—no matter
the defendant—for decades, the defendant’s response is a transparent effort to demand special
treatment, try his case in the courtroom of public opinion, and turn his trial into a media event.
The Court should reject this attempted distraction and deny the applications.
Although the defendant pays lip service to proceedings where “every citizen receiv[es] the
same kind of justice,” ECF No. 19 (quoting Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560, 580 (1981)), he
once again demands special treatment. But the defendant offers no legal argument or case law to
support his demand that trial in this case be conducted unlike that for every other federal criminal
defendant. His purported interest in “sunlight” (ECF No. 19 at 2, 4) does not cure that defect.
Indeed, the defendant ignores that high-profile federal criminal trials have long proceeded in
accordance with the broadcast prohibition under the rules—and that they have garnered significant
and detailed media coverage of courtroom proceedings nonetheless. See United States v.
Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302, 313 (2022); United States v. Moussaoui, 205 F.R.D. 183, 184 (E.D. Va.
2002); United States v. McVeigh, 931 F. Supp. 753 (D. Colo. 1996). This has remained true in the
context of trials related to the January 6, 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, including on
seditious conspiracy charges. See, e.g., United States v. Rhodes, 610 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.D.C. 2022);
United States v. Nordean, 579 F. Supp. 3d 28 (D.D.C. 2021). The comprehensive, often minute-
by-minute, public reporting on courtroom hearings in this case provides further evidence that the
defendant’s desired “sunlight” need not come from eschewing the rules.
These rules apply to every defendant alike. As this Court has made clear, it intends that
the defendant “will be treated exactly, with no more or less deference, than any other defendant
would be treated.” United States v. Trump, No. 23-cr-257, ECF No. 38 at 33. Just like any other
criminal defendant, the defendant may elect to proceed to trial and to put on a defense. He may
elect to file (and indeed has filed) motions related to, among other things, due process, judicial
recusal, trial preparation, and presidential immunity. See ECF No. 19 at 2 (identifying issues that
were or are being briefed by both parties and considered by the Court, when complaining of
“inexcusable constitutional violations as part of a coordinated effort to undermine President
Trump’s candidacy,” and complaining about the apparent denial of a venue change motion that he
has never made). And he may elect to craft court filings with the goal of gathering media coverage
rather than lawful relief from the Court, as he appears to have done on this and many other
-2-
occasions. But neither he nor any other criminal defendant is free to bend or break the rules simply
to advance a goal of “present[ing] his positions in this case to the American public,” ECF No. 19
at 5, rather than to a jury. See Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350 (1966) (quoting Bridges
v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 271 (1941)) (“legal trials are not like elections, to be won through the
use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.”).
The defendant peppers his response with various references to “fairness,” but what he
actually seeks is to defy a uniform and longstanding broadcast prohibition that was crafted
precisely with fair and orderly trial proceedings in mind. 1 He desires instead to create a carnival
atmosphere from which he hopes to profit by distracting, like many fraud defendants try to do,
from the charges against him. This scenario is not hypothetical. As the Court has already observed
in proceedings in the defendant’s criminal trial, the defendant and his counsel will, if permitted,
design their in-court statements instead to wage a public relations campaign. And in the
defendant’s New York state civil fraud trial, the defendant recently used his testimony to condemn
the case as a “political witch hunt,” prompting the judge to admonish that “[t]his is not a political
rally . . ..” 2 The Court should not grant the applications in plain contravention of Rule 53 and
further motivate the defendant and his counsel to make improper statements inside the courtroom
to provoke a public reaction outside of it.
Although the defendant proclaims that his goal is for the American public to watch the
proceedings in this case (ECF No. 19 at 2, 5), he has consistently made clear his desire to delay
the trial in this case or to ensure that one does not happen at all. See, e.g., No. 23-cr-257, ECF No.
1
See Judicial Conference Revises Policy to Expand Remote Access Over Its Pre-COVID
Policy, Admin. Off. of the U.S. Cts., https://perma.cc/S35N-P6GP.
2
See NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-fraud-
trial-live-updates-rcna122520.
-3-
142 at 2-3 (listing defendant’s efforts to delay trial in his criminal case). If the defendant sought
sunlight as he claims, he should welcome the opportunity to put the Government to its proof at
trial. Instead, his response to the applications shows that he will continue to attempt to avoid
answering for his criminal conduct in the courtroom while at the same time publicly grandstanding
on the Court’s docket.
The Court should decline the defendant’s “demand” (ECF No. 19 at 5) that he be placed
beyond the rules and above the law. And it should avoid the spectacle—and attendant risks of
witness intimidation—that the longstanding rules against courtroom broadcasting are designed to
avoid. For all the reasons stated here and in the Government’s opposition, ECF No. 16, the
applications should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Special Counsel
/s/ James I. Pearce

James I. Pearce
John M. Pellettieri
Assistant Special Counsels
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Room B-206
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 532-4991
Email: [email protected]
Counsel for the United States
-4-

Gov - Uscourts.dcd.260552.21.0 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gov - Uscourts.dcd.260552.21.0 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gov - Uscourts.dcd.260552.21.0 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-mc-00099-TSC Document 21 Filed 11/13/23 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN RE MEDIA APPLICATION FOR

UNITED STATES’ REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO

“inexcusable constitutional violations as part of a coordinated effort to undermine President

use of the meeting-hall, the radio, and the newspaper.”).

to provoke a public reaction outside of it.

on the Court’s docket.

applications should be denied.

/s/ James I. Pearce

You might also like