Press Motion
Press Motion
Press Motion
Defendants.
Pursuant to Local Rules 7.1 and 77.1, a coalition of local and national news media
organizations (the “Press Coalition”) that continue to cover the federal criminal proceedings in
the above-referenced matter respectfully submit this motion regarding access to the arraignment
As the Court is aware, this is the first federal indictment ever brought against a former
President of the United States. The American public’s interest in this case is beyond
exaggeration. As the Honorable Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart explained when unsealing
documents related to the FBI’s search warrant for documents at Mar-a-Lago, this case presents
1
The coalition includes: Cable News Network, Inc., Advance Publications, Inc., American
Broadcasting Companies, Inc. d/b/a ABC News, The Associated Press, Bloomberg L.P., CBS
Broadcasting, Inc. o/b/o CBS News, CMG Media Corporation, Cox Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., publisher of The Wall Street Journal,
The E.W. Scripps Company, Fort Myers Broadcasting Company, Gray Media Group, Inc., Los
Angeles Times Communications LLC, publisher of The Los Angeles Times, the McClatchy
Company, LLC d/b/a the Miami Herald, National Public Radio, Inc., NBCUniversal Media, LLC
d/b/a NBC News, The New York Times Company, Orlando Sentinel Media Group, publisher of
the Orlando Sentinel, POLITICO LLC, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reuters
News & Media Inc., Sun-Sentinel Company, LLC, publisher of the South Florida Sun Sentinel,
TEGNA Inc., Telemundo Network Group LLC d/b/a Noticias Telemundo, Univision Networks
& Studios, Inc., WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post, and WPLG, Inc.
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 2 of 7
issues of an “unprecedented” and “intense public and historical interest.” See In re Sealed
Search Warrant, 622 F. Supp. 3d 1257, 1260 (S.D. Fla. 2022). Magistrate Judge Reinhart
further aptly noted that “[i]t is a foundational principle of American law that judicial proceedings
Considering the exceptional and historic nature of this case, the Press Coalition
First, the coalition requests that the Court permit a limited number of photographs and
videorecordings in the courtroom and/or the outside corridor before the arraignment currently set
for 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 13, 2023. While this request seeks relief not permitted in
ordinary cases, Local Rule 77.1 provides judicial discretion to permit limited photographs during
“special proceedings, as approved by a Judge of this Court.” And the special and historic nature
of this case warrants, at the very least, a limited, non-disruptive visual record before the hearing
begins.
Second, the coalition asks that the Court, immediately following the arraignment
tomorrow and in future proceedings in this case, release to the public the recordings that will be
made with the Court’s own audio recording technology. The unprecedented and historic nature
of these proceedings warrants same-day access to these recordings. Indeed, in a series of rulings
in favor of the public’s and press’s First Amendment rights to attend criminal court proceedings,
the Supreme Court explained that “a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a
criminal trial under our system of justice.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S.
555, 573 (1980). As the Court noted, an open trial “provid[es] an outlet for community concern,
hostility, and emotion.” Id. at 571. “When the public is aware that the law is being enforced and
the criminal justice system is functioning, an outlet is provided for the[] understandable reactions
2
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 3 of 7
and emotions [to alleged criminal acts].” Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501,
509 (1984).
record of that hearing. While written transcripts of criminal proceedings are made available to
the public, they are not a timely substitute for a contemporaneous audio record. Federal courts in
high-profile cases like this one frequently record and release same-day audio recordings. C.f.
https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/covering-criminal-trials-journalists-guide#exhibits
(noting that “[i]n high-profile cases, courts may work with the parties to make extra copies of
exhibits that the news media can review, or the court may decide to post exhibits on its
website”). The District of Columbia Circuit Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Federal Circuit
Court of Appeals (among others) place same-day audio of oral arguments and hearings online.
In high-profile cases, the U.S. Supreme Court frequently releases same-day (or soon thereafter)
audio recordings of proceedings.2 And in the interest of speed and accuracy, some courts will
2
Following oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, for example, the Supreme Court provided a
public transcript within 90 minutes. See
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_03-05-15. The Court did
likewise in Bush v. Palm Beach Cnty. Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70 (2000), and Bush v. Gore,
531 U.S. 98 (2000), as well as Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
3
See https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-court-media-basics-journalists-
guide#recording (noting that the Second and Ninth Circuits will livestream certain, high-profile
events). Some Circuits, such as the Third Circuit, also use YouTube Channels to either live-
stream or later post video or audio recordings of proceedings. See, e.g.,
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLSXp4JMYiFc7BHD_ln3d-w.
3
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 4 of 7
This is a case of exceptional public interest to the entire country and beyond. The
judiciary’s dedication to open and transparent courts takes on added significance in historical
proceedings such as this, where the public demands full and complete knowledge of what
transpired to understand the government’s decision to exercise its prosecutorial power over
Mr. Trump.
The need for immediate audio recordings is further heightened by the tense political
atmospherics of this case. Because Mr. Trump has alleged that this entire case is an illegitimate
witch hunt, the actions of the judiciary, prosecution, and defense will receive exceptional
scrutiny, and any informational vacuum will be filled with wild speculation and conjecture.
Complete transparency—in the form of swift availability of audio recordings—will both ensure
the integrity and legitimacy of the case and keep Americans informed about this critically
important matter.
For the foregoing reasons, the Press Coalition asks the Court both to permit limited, pre-
hearing photographs and videorecordings and to deploy its integrated audio equipment to record
and release same-day official audio recordings of the proceedings in this case, beginning with the
Pursuant to Local Rules 7.1(b)(2) and 88.9(a), undersigned counsel certifies that on June
12, 2023, they made reasonable efforts to confer via email with counsel for the Government and
counsel for Mr. Trump regarding the relief requested in this motion. Counsel for the
Government responded that the Government takes no position and defers to the Court. Counsel
4
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 5 of 7
5
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 6 of 7
6
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/12/2023 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 9th day of June 2023, I caused true and correct copies of the
foregoing to be served via ECF and by email and U.S. Mail First Class on the following: