The Unseen Injustice: A Closer Look at the Trial Against Donald Trump
Introduction:
Throughout his career, Alan Dershowitz, a prominent lawyer and law professor, has witnessed the intricacies of justice systems across the globe. However, nothing prepared him for the spectacle he observed during Donald Trump’s trial. In this narrative, we will delve into the unprecedented biases and questionable conduct displayed by New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, shedding light on the need for televised trials and unbiased reporting.
A Tyrant in Disguise:
Though appearing benevolent to the jury, Justice Merchan proved to be an absolute tyrant in Donald Trump’s trial. Dershowitz, along with many experienced lawyers, raised their eyebrows at the judge’s exclusion of relevant evidence presented by the defense. However, their astonishment reached new heights when the judge allowed irrelevant evidence from the prosecution while reprimanding Robert Costello, the defense’s substantive witness, for questioning his rulings. Merchan’s irrational outburst even led to clearing the courtroom of everyone except Dershowitz, leaving him as one of the few witnesses to the judge’s misconduct.
A Threat to Justice:
During the trial, Justice Merchan crossed constitutional boundaries by threatening to strike all of Costello’s testimony if he raised his eyebrows again. Such a move would have violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights, denying him the opportunity to confront witnesses and present a defense. Despite the impropriety of Costello’s actions being questionable at best, striking his testimony would have been entirely improper and unlawful. More concerning was the judge’s contemptuous attitude towards the defense and anyone who testified for the defendant, revealing a deep bias that undermined the pursuit of justice.
The Absence of Transparency:
The lack of courtroom transparency further compounds the issue. With no live television coverage, the public must rely on partisan journalists’ biased reporting. Even when journalists are present, their accounts often distort reality. Dershowitz experienced this firsthand when a friendly conversation with a former student was misrepresented by media outlets like NBC and The Daily Beast. False reporting about the trial, like this incident, exposes the larger problem of inaccurate coverage, which would be mitigated if trials were televised.
The Need for Televised Trials:
Dershowitz argues that televised trials are essential for maintaining fairness and accountability. Currently, television cameras in the courtroom transmit proceedings to select reporters in an overflow room, depriving the public of real-time access. By televising trials, the public can witness the actions of judges, lawyers, and witnesses directly, ensuring transparency and minimizing the influence of biased reporting. As Justice Brandeis wisely said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Just as live television coverage improved accuracy in sports broadcasts, it would compel commentators to report the truth in trials.
The Consequences of Partisan Reporting:
Partisan reporting without checks leads to rampant exaggerations and personal opinions. The American public becomes the ultimate loser in this scenario, as they are left with distorted narratives that hinder their ability to form informed opinions. Dershowitz’s call for televised trials is not only a plea for transparency but also a necessary step towards restoring trust in the justice system.
Conclusion:
Alan Dershowitz’s firsthand account of the trial against Donald Trump reveals deep-seated biases and improper conduct by Justice Merchan. The lack of transparency and unchecked partisan reporting further exacerbate the issue, hindering public understanding and trust in the justice system. By televising trials, we can ensure fairness, accountability, and accurate reporting, allowing the public to witness justice in action. Only then can we uphold the principles of justice and truly serve the interests of all citizens.
