He’s Not as Orange as He Looks

“He looked less orange.” Right outside the barricade around 100 Centre Street, MSNBC’s Yasmin Vossoughian stood interviewing a recently dismissed juror exiting the courtroom. The juror was elated to be dismissed as she claimed she simply wouldn’t be unbiased and fact-based when the time came to make a decision. Most called into jury service dislike civic duty and wish to be dismissed like her, but the juror’s trial has been unique—it is Former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial—and many press officials and members of the public have been lined up to watch the public proceedings. 

Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up potentially damaging payments to his former lawyer Michael Cohen—the first of four criminal indictments Trump is on the hook for. In the popular tabloid National Enquirer, Cohen allegedly used this money to pay off adult film actress Stormy Daniels and other whistleblowers, with an agreement that they would not publicize Daniels’s previous sexual relationship with Trump during the height of the 2016 presidential election. The charges are filed as a felony—not a misdemeanor—due to New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s claims that Trump and his team illegally concealed information in order to interfere with the election. David Pecker, a key witness in the defense’s case, testified and confirmed that this practice—named “catch and kill”—was central to Trump’s ascendance to the presidency.

Critics often question the legality of the case, agreeing with Trump’s attorney Emil Bove’s argument that Trump’s actions were “industry standard,” because National Enquirer has previously suppressed stories for other electoral candidates such as former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Some right-wing conservatives also question the constitutionality of even charging Trump since he has been the only former president to be charged with criminal wrongdoing—they feel his executive position should grant him immunity. However, the Supreme Court has been cautious about Trump’s presidential immunity arguments, as any ruling could set a dangerous precedent. All of this makes the trial a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see someone who held the highest office in the United States on trial.

I queued up outside the courthouse on Friday, lured in by the possibility of seeing the celebrity politician and shivering in the cold, brisk air. There were two queues—one for journalists and one for the general public. After the press filed into the courthouse, the public spectators became anxious. Our line was full of concerned New Yorkers—an 18 year-old fully-suited student on spring break, a lawyer with a cowboy hat, and curious tourists from the Midwest— who each wanted a seat in the courtroom. While waiting, a reporter wearing a yellow beanie walked up to me. The freelance journalist hurriedly took down my name on a copy of the Washington Post. As police officers began handing out hall passes for Trump’s restricted Floor 15, spectacularly, the last green slip fell into my hands. As I walked from the waiting area into the building, I looked at the pass. It was printed with the seal of New York State and stamped with the date, “April 26.” 

I was seated with the vast majority of the press and the public in the separate overflow room, where we watched the trial displayed on three flatscreen televisions. We saw quippy moments like presiding Judge Juan Merchan chuckling about Bove still referring to Trump as president and the defense aggressively questioning Pecker. During his testimony, Pecker’s demeanor was sour and combative against Trump, especially while delving into the meetings they had to discuss their 2016 election coverage. The spectators just seemed happy to be there, feeling like they were along for the ride. I thought the same. When an exhibit of National Enquirer’s slanderous stories against Trump’s competitors Marco Rubio and Ben Carson was displayed, everyone leaned closer to get a unique look at the physical evidence that demonstrated Pecker’s actions. After watching the court proceedings, I can confirm that former President Trump is less orange than many claim, and he’s taller than expected. Yet, that wasn’t the most surprising thing I saw that day. When I arrived an hour before the trial, only around 30 people were waiting to see the historic event in the largest city in the U.S. 

What makes watching any New York state criminal trial special—especially high-profile ones—is that you will be a part of the only spectators to ever witness the proceedings. New York enshrined a 1930s law that prohibits voice and video recording inside criminal proceedings, making it one of two states to outlaw taping in criminal court—the other is Louisiana. The legislation was introduced after traumatic testimony in the trial of criminal Bruno Hauptmann was leaked to the press after spectators had been given the leeway to record certain parts of the trial for later release. After the recording of the trial was public, many media personnel turned the trial into a show, similar to O.J. Simpson’s criminal trial. Due to the trial’s negative coverage, many were concerned that the witnesses could face dangerous consequences for testifying. Hauptmann and his family were also at risk, considering that his heinous crimes drew public outcry and disdain, leading the judge and later many states to ban cameras in the courtroom. As such, the only way to get a glimpse at Trump is through antiquated courtroom sketches, accounts from the press, or witnessing it yourself. 

For such a unique case such as Trump’s, I believe there needs to be a complete repeal of this restrictive law. Considering that we are entering an election year—where a mainstream candidate is also a criminal defendant—the American public must fully understand the severity and legitimacy of his alleged crimes. Many Americans would not approve of a president who has been convicted of a crime, nor would they approve of a president who is in a cell block instead of the Oval Office. Despite arguments for safety and the right to privacy, I believe that New York ought to allow taping of the trial—whether it be live or recorded and later released to the public so there can be greater transparency in the justice system. In doing so, New York would follow the rest of the country in judicial transparency, which is essential in a democracy. The U.S. is meant to be a bastion of openness and accountability, so how can the American public come to an informed decision about which candidate will be their future commander in chief when one of them is in a closed and private trial?

While the damaging law is still in place, I urge New Yorkers to attend the trial at least once. As the prosecution begins to wrap up their case, there are still the defense’s ongoing arguments and closing statements that are just as valuable to watch on any weekday besides during Wednesday’s court recess. The experience is eye-opening to understand the criminal justice system at its heart and how any criminal case is prosecuted. We can gain valuable insights into current events since the trial is at the heart of Trump’s re-election campaign and learn lessons in civics and the law, especially as students. Civic responsibilities such as jury duty and voting often go untaught in many public schools across the country and can be damaging because of the tumultuous time we live in. America is built upon the assumption that individuals can give back to the community, and one way students can do this is by learning more about current events and being informed about our legal system. Showing up to Donald Trump’s hearings or any case presented at 100 Centre Street will leave you with an experience that I believe molds you into a responsible citizen of the United States.

It is also important that spectators show up to support the rule of equality under the law. We have the agency to promote integrity in this high-stakes trial. As more citizens show up to watch, more citizens are then informed of the charges and can hold the media and justice system potentially accountable. When we see Trump make erroneous comments about the jury, violate his gag order, and continue to deny his criminal allegations, New Yorkers being present at the trial provides an extra layer of accountability. Voters can use their new knowledge to make an informed decision on election day, or spectators can have open dialogues about the trial to inform the wider American electorate, seeing that Trump’s unprofessional actions have tarnished the United States’s reputation. Although it is true that I dozed off occasionally—just like the former president—even if you are present for just a few hours, your understanding of our government will be enriched. No matter what opinions you form after observing the facts of the case, you could also conclude that Donald Trump is not as orange as you may think, whether it’s the color of his skin or the potential color of his prison suit.