THE STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME, COURT OF
COUNTY OF NEW YORI(: PART 59

IN THE, MATTER OF AN APPLICATION

OF NE\)rS ORGANIZATIONS RE,LATED DE,CISION AND ORDER
TO THE ARRAIGNMENT IN INDICTMENT
71s43/2023 Ind. No.71543-23

HON. JUAN M. MERCHAN J.S.C.:

On March 30,2023, the District Attorney of New York County, Alvin L. Btagg,Jr., by the
Affrmation of Peter B. Pope, an Assistant District Attorney, applied to this Cout for an Order
authorizing the Office of the District Attorney (hereinafter "DANY"), to disclose to the public that
the gtand jury had returned a true bill in the Matter of the People of the State of New York v.

Donald J. Trump, ind. No. 71543-23. This Court signed the Order rhat day.
Arraignment on this matter is scheduled to take place tomortow, April 4,2023, at
apptoximately 2:15 PM.
On the evening of Friday, March 31,,2023, the law Erm of Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, by
Robert Balin, (hereinafter "Petitioners" or "News Orgarizattons"), applied to this Coutt on behalf
of numerous news orgarizaaons, for an Order allowing access at the araignment of "print
journalists . .. [and] a limited number of videographers, photographels, and tadio joumalists." As

required by 22 NYCRR SS 29 and 131, this Court contacted the People and the Defense via e-mail
on Sunday, Aprl.2,2023, and invited both parties to bring to this Court's attendon any concerns ot
objections they might have regarding the application. The paties were asked to tespond in writing
by 1:00 PM on Monday, April 3, 2023. The Court also invited the Petitioners to make additional
submissions, if necessary, to expand upon their original application.

AII three parties Frled submrssions by the one o'clock deadline today.
 CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

PETITIONERS
Supplementing their original application of Match 37,2023, requesting that in addition to

providing access to print journalists, the Court allow the presence of a limited number of
videographers, photographers and radio journalists, the Petitioners made six additional requests in

their letter of April 3,2023. First, Peutioner requested a hearing on their application and asked that
the hearing be consolidated with the required conference. See 22 NYCRR S 131.5.

Second, the News Organizaaons requested that "as many seats as possible be reserved for

members of the press within the physical courtroom where the artaignment will take place.

Third, Petitioners expressed their objection to the use of "overflow" rooms arguing that
such method of viewing court procecdings "is not a constitutionally adequate substitute for in-

person news reporting." In support of this algument, Petitioners argued, among other things, that

the remote CCTV cameras used to transmit signals to the overflow rooms "cannot substitute for

fust-hand obsewation of the demeanor and facial expressions of parties, their counsel and yudicial
officers." Nonetheless, Petitionefs request, "to the extent the arrargnment courtroom cannot
accommodate every journalist and member of the public who wishes to attend, the News

Orgatizaaons request that the court provide as many ovetflow rooms (with CCT\|) as is possible
under the circumstances." The contradiction undermining the argument is self-evident. The Cout
also notes that those present in the arraignment courtroom will have a far more difficult time
observing "demeanor" and"facial expressions" because they will be seated behind the parties and

looking at the backs of their heads. Whereas the people seated in the overflow rooms will have the
benefit of the faces of the parties because the CCTV cameras are mounted in the ftont of the
couftroom.
Fourth, the News Organizaactns ask that journalists be permitted to bring all electronic
devices into the courtroom (and overflow rooms) "so that they may e-mail, text and live-Tweet

during the proceedings."

Fifth, the Nervs Orgarizattons request conFrmation that the use of cameras will be
permitted in the halhvays of the courthouse.
Sixth, the Nervs Otgarizalons request that a seat in the artxgnment couftroom be teserved

fot one of its attorneys.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY NEW YOzu< COUNTY
The People take no position and defer to this Court's disctetion though they note that "'the
presence of cameras"' "raises a number of concerns" "'including the prejudicial impact of pretrial

publicity on the jurors, the impact on the truthfulness of the witnesses, responsibilities placed on the
trial judge to assure a fan tial and the impact on the [defendant]"' Citing Courtrvom Telerision Netaork
I .l C a. State of NewYork,5 N.Y.3d 222at230.

DEFE,NDANT
Defendant opposes the News Organizaaon's application and asks that it be denied.
Defendant expresses fear thatgranting the application will create a "circus-like atmosphere .., raise
securiq. concerns and is inconsistent r.vith President Ttump's presumption of innocence."

Defendant further argues that the heightened media ptesence will "inevitably tesult in ptejudice"
and "detract from both the dig-ty and decorum of the proceedings and will necessadly interfere

with the fair administration of justice." Lasdy, Defendant correcdy identifies the extraordinary
security concerns associated with this atraignment.

DISCUSSION
That this indictment involves ,r matter of monumental significance cannot possibly be
drsputed. Never in the history of the United States has a sitting or past President been indicted on
criminal charges. Mr. Trump's arraignment has generated unparalleled public interest and media
attention. The populace dghtly hungers for thc most accurate and cuffent information available.
To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous. Understandably, the News Orgattzaions want to
fulfill their responsibiJities and argue that obtaining the broadest possible public access helps

advance that mission.

Unfortunately, although genuine and undoubtedly important, the interests of the News
Organizattons must be weighed against compcting interests. This Court is now called upon to

engage in that balancing exercise.

"In order to maintain the broadest scope of public access to the courts, to pfeserve public

confidence in the Judiciary, and to foster pr"rblic understanding of the role of the Judicial Branch in

civil socieq., it is the policy of the UniFred Court System to facilitate the audio-visual covetage of
court proceedings to the fullest extent [.]" 22 NYCRR S 131.1(a). "All presiding tdal judges and all
administrative judges shall take whatcver stcps are necessary to ensure that audio-visual coverage is
conducted without disruption of court proceedings, without detracting from or intedering with the
dignity or decorum of the court .. . without compromise of the safety of petsons having business

before the court and without advetsely affccting the administration of justice." 22 NYCRR S

131.1G). "Coverage of judicial proceedings shall be permitted only upon order of the presiding trial
judge approving an oral or written application made by a representative of the news media for

permission to conduct such coverage." 22 NYCRR $ 131.3(a). Upon receiving such an application,
a presiding uial judge is recluired to conduct an appropriate revierv which includes consultation with
the nervs media, consultation with counsel and a revierv of all statements or affidavits submitted in

support and opposition to the application. 22 NYCRR 131.3(b). This Court has conducted such a
review.
"In determining an application for coverage, the presiding trial judge shall considet all

relevanr factors, including but not limited to: 1. The type of case involved; 2. Whether the covetage

would cause harm to any participant; 3. Whether the covetage rvould interfere with the fair
administrauon of justice, the advancement of a fau trial, or the rights of the Parties; 4. Whethet the
coverage would interfere with any larv enforcement activity; 5. \X/hether the coverage would involve

lewd or scandalous matters; 6. The objection of any of the parties, victims ot other participants in
the proceeding of which coverage is sought; the physical structure of the courtroom and the

likelihood rhat any equrpment required to conduct covcrage can be ... opemted without
disturbance." 22 NYCRR S 131.3(d)

"Following review of an application for coverage of a judicial proceeding, the presiding trial

judge, as soon as practicable, shall issue an otder, in rvriting or on the recotd in open coult,

approving such application, in whole or iu part, or denf ing it." 22 NYCRR $ 131.3(e)

DECISION
Irr consideration of all relevant factors, including but flot limited to those debneated rn 22
NYCruf 5\ 131.3(d) and in particular, rvhethcr the cor.erage rvould interfere with the fair

adminisuation of justice; rvhether thc cor-eragc would interfere rvith law enforcement activity; the
objections of the Defendant; and limitatrons rclated to the physical structure of the courtroom, it is
hereby

ORDERED that Petitioner's original application is granted to the extent that five pool
photographers shall be permitted into the jury box prior to the comnencement of the araignment.
The photographers will be permitted to take still photos for several minutes until such time as they
are di.rected to vacate the jury box bv court personnel. No further photography will be permitted in
the couttroom after that.

Petitioner's six requests of April 3,2023, are decided as follows:

First request: Having heard from all parties through their written submissions, the
application for a further hearing is DENIED. A Conference is hereby scheduled for Tuesday, Aptil
4, 2023, in Part 59 to be conducted at 2:1.5 p.m. immediately precedin g the artelLgnmerit.
Second request: The proceedings rvill be heard in Part 59 commencing at 2:15. Access to the

proceedings will be on a frst-come first-serwed basis. Members of the press and public seeking

access rvill be able to line up outside 111 Centre Street. The line for the press will open at 8:00 a.m.
and the line for the public',vill open at 9:00 a.m. Court officers rvill distribute color-coded access

cards to those on line subject to court room capacity. Individuals who receive an access card will be
given access at approximately 1:30 p.m. through the north entrance of 100 Centre Street.

The third request is GRANTtrD to the extent that Parts 75 andPart95 will serve as over-
flow rooms where the proceedings can be vierved remotely. The press and public will be ditected by
court officers to one of the two over-flow court rooms, pursuant to color-coded access cards.
The fourth request is DENIED. The use of cell phones, laptops ot electronic devices
^ny
will be stlictly prohibited in the court rooms. r\ny such devices rvill have to be tumed off and
secured outside of public view while in the courtrooms. A^y device that is not propedy secured
pursuant to this Order will be subject to confiscation.
Fifth request: Use of cameras rvill be PERN{IT'IED in the hallways of the building.
 The sixth request is Granted. A seat in Part 59 will be reserved for Robert Balin as Counsel
for Petitioners; and it is fruther
ORDERED that any violation of this ORDER shall be punishable by contempt Pursuant to
Article 19 of the Judiciary Law.

Dated: fupil,3,2023
New York, NY

Amfiia d
I l\g#Frur. .'^"t.,
Acting Justice of the Supreme Court
Judge of the Court of Claims

!!gN. J,m&cfiAru