The trial of serial sex abuser Donald Trump (SSAT) in New York does not allow live TV coverage of the proceedings and photographers have only been allowed to take photographs before the day’s proceedings begin. There have been complaints by the media that the public has a right to know what is going on in high-profile cases like this and that a live video feed should be allowed in the public interest.
While there would undoubtedly have been considerable interest (even though much of court proceedings are routine and boring), I am not convinced that allowing TV cameras and photographers is a good idea. A trial is not an event aimed at the general public. The only audience that matters are the jurors and the goal should be to give them the best experience of the case. When TV cameras are present, it might subtly distort that behavior of all the participants, and photographers vying for the best shot could also be distracting.
Instead we have been shown plenty of sketches of the proceedings done by courtroom sketch artists and I became curious as to who these people were and in what capacity they were doing the work. It appears that they are hired by media outlets and thus have no special status in the proceedings, being considered just like other members of the media and have to compete with them for the best spots in the court.
This article describes how they go about their work. There is a need to work very quickly and also to identify key moments and capture expressions.
With cameras banned during the proceedings, sketch artists have been essential for allowing the public to see images from the first criminal trial of a former US president.
Settling into the third row each day, the courtroom sketch artists bring their supplies – oil pastels, pencils, charcoal sticks, mixed media paper, plus seat cushions – to watch hours of testimony and courtroom arguments.
…The women said they line up each morning at 7:00 local time (12:00 BST) lugging their supplies. When they are allowed into court, generally about two hours later, they quickly set up before Mr Trump and his entourage arrive.
In the past, they’ve had a front row seat, but prosecutors and the defence have reserved the first two rows for their own purposes.
…Relegated to the third row, the women said they crane their necks around court guards standing in the front and Mr Trump’s frequent guests to get a good angle of him, the witnesses, Justice Juan Merchan and the lawyers.
…Both artists said the scramble to deliver on deadline is a challenge. Phone use is not allowed in the courtroom, and those inside are not allowed to leave when they want.
That means they can only deliver their work during breaks.
The artists said they typically prop sketches on a trash can in a court bathroom to get decent light then shoot them with cell phones.
This article profiles Christine Cornell, Jane Rosenberg, and Elizabeth Williams, three of the artists in the SSAT trial, how they started their careers in this field, and what they think of the trial.
Trump’s New York hush money trial — which is scheduled to take six to eight weeks — will provide Cornell, Rosenberg, and Williams with repeat business by working with wire services or other news outlets. Having Trump in the courtroom on a daily basis also gives them a steady subject to refine in their sketches.
“The more I draw somebody, the more I can ace them,” Cornell said.
They each acknowledged that they enjoy sketching the former president, whose unique features add character to their work. Rosenberg said she enjoys the expressiveness of his face and the “crazy hair” in his eyebrows.
“Nobody looks like Trump,” Rosenberg said.
Cornell added that Trump’s hue — famously described as orange — is less intense in person, and his hair appears to be less “artificial” than in the past.
“I see more gray coming in on the sides. He’s allowing that to happen. It’s also a little thinner than it used to be,” Cornell said.
Williams believes that the sketches of Trump’s court appearances will capture a more realistic view of Trump than cameras could ever offer.
“He’s posing for them. When they’re gone, you really see who he really is, his real reaction, his real expression,” Williams said. “The words are the harmony. The illustrations are the melody. That’s how you tell the complete picture.”
It seems like a challenging occupation.
In the UK it is even more challenging as artists are not allowed to sketch in the court, they have to remember what they want to sketch and dash it off during breaks.
Jazzlet, that seems like a pretty good idea.
I agree, regarding cameras in courtrooms, although watching trials is often fascinating. The only purpose of a trial is to get justice done, for both parties. Anything that might interfere with that shouldn’t be there, and I think that live videos feeds change the behaviors of all participants significantly.
If the public has a “right to know”, no one is stopping you from traveling there and watching in the courtroom. There’s no constitutional right to watch trials from the comfort of your living room. Or to see drawings done in situ.
I don’t think televising trials would be in anyone’s best interests, unless you are OJ Simpson. Thus the traditional courtroom artist is employed. Otherwise his orangeness would spend the entire trial mugging for the camera and turning his trial into a circus sideshow.
It’s great that artists get paid for their talents, though dashing off quick portraits is the standard for caricaturists. I can see how it would be very difficult to capture expressions and gestures from three rows back.
Obviously not. Not one of those sketches even attempts photorealism.
(I’ve seen the difference between those sketches and photographs)
What a silly rationalisation!
He’s supposedly posing for the cameras, but not for the sketch artists. Right.
Also: https://www.camerasecuritynow.com/government/courthouse-surveillance
Um. There’s an audience. There are sketch artists.
Those are most certainly supererogatory to your alleged singular purpose, no?
(https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/05/01/inside-trump-hush-money-trial-courtroom/73440639007/)
Surely justice mustn’t just be done, but be seen to be done? That said, I do understand the problem of people changing their behaviour because they know that they are on camera.
There is so much potential for fun, with AI art generation tools, “in the style of a courtroom sketch”
@ 4 Morales
She’s not talking about “photorealism” Captain Hyperliteral. X-D
The concept being conveyed is that a sketch can give a more accurate impression of a person’s regular behaviour and character than a posed photograph.
The meaning is clear to everyone else.
Ah, the bob that is not silent bobs in, not unexpectedly, and helpfully:
Ahem, and I quote:
“Williams believes that the sketches of Trump’s court appearances will capture a more realistic view of Trump than cameras could ever offer.”
Are you gonna quibble about the semantics of ‘realism’?
How about ‘a more realistic view clearly is one that more closely resembles reality’, that work for you?
<snicker>
Yes, I get that, Mr. Hyperliteral. I know that’s the intended meaning.
But it’s absolute bullshit, ain’t it? That’s what I am saying.
It’s an unrealistic depiction of whatever the artist imagines, done rather sloppily.
Art, basically.
It’s clear to me as well, you dolt.
But it’s actually a bullshit claim.
An interpretation by an artist is nonetheless an interpretation, and if one cares to imagine that it’s more real than a camera’s capture of the image, well fine, I can’t stop that.
You know, there are three artists featured in that piece — one I read before it was featured here, FWTW — and so a multiplicity of realism beyond photorealism.
Now, care to argue how you imagine an artist can capture reality better than a camera?
Remember, the complication at hand is that three artists do not make for three identical depictions.
Yet, you hold that that trinity of depictions is each more real than any camera could be, because a two-dimensional image quickly sketched can — and I quote you: give a more accurate impression of a person’s regular behaviour and character than a posed photograph.
(Hey, what about an unposed photograph? Cameras can do those, too!)
—
Thanks, bobiferous — for a minute there, I was feeling fragile and snowflakey and in low self-esteem, but now that I can see how I compare to you, I am duly reassured.
(But for the grace of God, eh?)
So, tell me more, bobiferant.
If Trump knows there’s a camera in the courtoom, he’s posing, but if he knows there are sketch artists, he’s not.
Right?
(Because if not, whence your objection)
Posing aside, do you seriously, really, by “a more realistic view of Trump” think a 2D image done by a sketch artist is better than a photograph? Or video, for that matter.
I doubt that.
Also, how either a photo or a sketch can supposedly convey an “impression of a person’s regular behaviour and character” is left to the imagination.
Does it involve stereotypes? Archetypes? Who knows?
Ah, artists!
Hey, bobiferoid, I betcha there’s MAGA types there that look at those sketches and see a stoic, resolute saviour enduring the goadings of his lessers, projecting a majestic mien.
See, this thing called ‘art’ is by nature subjective, and sometimes — just sometimes — what the artist intends and what the observer perceives can differ.
Because it’s all priming, right?
Or so I reckon.
(Me, I’m hard to prime. But then, I don’t need it)
No, John @5, the US constitution requires that all trials be public. So, there are at the least spectators in the courtroom.
Be that as it may, the only purpose of a trial is to deal out justice. The judge has absolute power over what the courtroom spectators can say, what they and when, they’re not allowed to clap for anything or whistle or boo or even murmur like, say, when the verdict is read. The judge has aboslute power about what te spectators can do, like even change your seat testimony, etc., So, the judge can and does throw spectators out for any behavior s/he considers as interfering with the pursuit of justice.
Tony @6, that trials must be public isn’t the *purpose* of the trial, it’s just another rule of trial procedure, and the judge is there to enforce all of those so that the trial is fair and gets justice.
So, having spectators is like that all witnesses must be sworn, that no statement can come from anywhere but the witness chair, that lawyers can’t make arguments during their opening statements, that the jury can’t be colluding among themselves or whatever, or be biased in some way. The judge dismisses such jurors. And, the judge can kick out anyone who’s disrupting the trial and so impeding the trial’s purpose: not just the spectators, but any of the lawyers and even the defendant!
So, the rules of trials are that anyone can come and watch, but only if you don’t interfere with the trial’s purpose. If you do, you’re out, and someone else can take your seat.
Indeed. 🙂
Thing is, I was reacting to your claim that “The only purpose of a trial is to get justice done, for both parties.”
It is a false claim, for the reason you just provided.
Right?
If it is the case that the US constitution requires that all trials be public, then surely tat least part of the purpose of the trial is to be made public. And if that is the case, then it cannot be also true that “The only purpose of a trial is to get justice done, for both parties.”
Well, unless you hold that getting justice done for both parties is the very same thing as making the trial public.
Had you claimed it to be the major purpose, the main purpose, something like that, well, that would work.
Cameras can do that.
But, if they are forbidden, then the lesser option must be exercised, and sketch artists come into their own.
(cf. the concept of artificial scarcity)
Dayum Bob, you’ve cracked the secret of getting under John’s skin. A triple stream-of-consciousness blurt for the price of a single tweet’s worth of text!
Well, yes.
Thing is, the VolubleBob supposedly wants me to post less.
Ideally, to not post at all.
But certainly to post less.
—
Also, his diagnosis about my low self-esteem (heh) and my fragility (haw) and so forth merit a bit of mockery, no?
—
But hey, Holms. Do go on about me.
Bobblicle’s favourite topic, and not one from which you resile.
—
Heh.
You know, I’ve tried discreet, I’ve tried distancing, I’ve tried mockery, I’ve tried terseness, I’ve tried dismissiveness, I’ve tried many things to bring the Blob’s obsessive neediness home to its sufferer.
Right now, I’m in a voluble phase.
—
Notice also how the bobiferant runs, runs away after maybe one, two interactions?
Ask yourself: who is trolling who?
Come on! Use that little nugget!
When my supposed trolling consists of retorts to jibes, and BobbyBottom is the one jibing (the main one, your little nuggets (polysemy!) barely register).
So. Only one retort from you.
Hey, surely you don’t seek to lessen my contributions here, do ya?
(Because if you do, Holms, you’re being utterly counterproductive, as you can see)
I like it how people get personal towards me, and then whinge that I am responding to personal comments.
How’s it working for ya?
(A special kind of stupidity, that is)
I mean, you do get it, no?
There’s my normal, baseline, ordinary commenting, which is ongoing regardless.
Then there’s my responding to personal comments.
Such as this very comment.
The regular comments, well. They will continue.
The retorts, well. Those are predicated (conditional) upon having personal comments to which to retort.
—
Obviously, I could go by what you and the bobbiculator say, or I could go by what you actually do, since they are in contrast.
Ostensibly, you want me to post less.
And yet. The more you post to or about me, the more I post.
In addition to what I would have been posting anyway.
So.
Perversity is a simple concept, and simpletons embody it.
🙂
So, Holms.
You reckon getting under my skin is a worthwhile endeavour?
(Such an achievement!)
—
Heh.
See how volubility goes.
—
BTW, Holms, if it’s stream-of-consciousness, it’s perforce genuine.
So.
How’s it go?
“What I tell you three times is true”
🙂
—
Oh, look, you’ve (by your metric) got under my skin.
Well done!
(Now what?)
Huh, my own sub-tweet warranted a quad. He sure is touchy these days.
He sure is.
And, therefore, you should note he sure is touchy, these days.
Well done!
Heh.
Point is obvious; you want me to post retorts, because you know I shall indeed post retorts, and so you invite retorts.
Over to you, Holms.
Besides, now the bubuloid doesn’t seem quite such an achiever, does he?
Heh.
Go on, Holms.
Opine about me some more.
You know you want to, after all, you can’t dispute my claims, so you must go after me personally.
(How’s that working for ya?)
[meta]
Me: Right now, I’m in a voluble phase.
Holms: ooooh!
Heh.
(How’s this working for ya?)
“he sure is touchy!”
<poke poke>
Who is trolling who, again? Supposedly.
Go on, Holms. Go on, CacoBobrous.
Tell me more.
The resident troll has so far posted 15 out out the 25 comments on this thread. (60%)
But is totally not a troll. Just a perfectly normal commenter with some opinions to share. (lol)
Gotta love it.
Achievement unlocked!
“Dayum Bob, you’ve cracked the secret of getting under John’s skin. A triple stream-of-consciousness blurt for the price of a single tweet’s worth of text!”
Again: if it’s stream-of-consciousness, it’s perforce genuine, right?
A description of my thought processes, not the actions resulting from my thought processes.
So. Genuine.
Me: Right now, I’m in a voluble phase.
Bobblebogger: ooooh!
Heh.
No worries.
—
Tell me more.
Getting under the skin of someone is most certainly not trolling, right, Bogger?
(You’ve so much become accustomed to routine hypocrisy, you don’t even see it)
Heh. Also, you are most evidently wrong.
I mean, fact is that hat you — yes, you — are actually the troll.
Fucking obvious, really.
You provoke, I respond.
(Did you not provoke, I’d not respond. Told you this for literally years now, O so many times)
Your achievement is to get me into anti-troll mode.
You get to enjoy the stress of my regard.
Enjoy.
Anyway.
My actual point, that cameras will obviously capture a more (objectively) realistic view than any artist’s interpretation, still stands.
People can get personal all they want, but that’s not even trying to dispute my claim.
So it goes.
So, bobiferantical.
You’ve tried this schtick about my fragile snowflakiness and meltdowns and whatnot.
A stupid attempt, but there it was.
Has that ever worked for you before?
Have you thus manipulated another person?
(I mean, you tried it on me… so that’s suggestive)
But only two (2) until you did your little jig, BobblyVox.
Remember? “@ 4 Morales”
You know how over years now I’ve told you I’d respond to you?
You know how over years you always pretend to be blown away (you only wish) by how I respond to your less than subtle provocations. Your crude antagonism. Your silly, oleaginous pretend reforms.
Bah.
So.
You know how in this thread I’ve told you I’d respond to you? Volubly?
Yet here you are, brandishing your stats about how many comments I’ve made.
And, of course, you know how over years now I’ve pointed out that, were it not for your little digs, your snide snipes, your annoying buzzing around my comments, those stats would look entirely different?
You can pretend to be surprised all you want, but it’s as obvious as could be you are creating that stream of comments, especially in this voluble phase.
—
Thing is, Mano knows how it is.
Obs, I am testing his patience, but realistically, how much more could this thread develop outside your little vendetta?
So, might as well make how things are as obvious as I can.
Everyone can see who provokes who.
Honestly, the state of this. X-D
I’m starting to think that guy who keeps turning up on PZ’s blog calling him “Paula” is the less unhinged.
Nah, you’re right up there, Bobbliculator.
Of course, every single thing you ever say, if it’s to me, has zero credibility.
That much, you’ve achieved.
Silent, you are not, bob.
John @14, again, no. The purpose of the trial is to find justice. That they have to throw to doors open to anyone who may walk in, is one of the rules of trial procedure that is in force to assure that justice is done: i.e., justice isn’t done to the defendant if their trial is secret. And, it’s just another one of the rules of fair trial procedure that assure a just trial, that the judge is responsible for enforcing.
If they open the doors and no one at all comes in, fine, they proceed anyway (this is how the majority of trials are, because most are pretty boring.) If the judge kicks out every spectator for interfering with the trial’s purpose, that’s OK too as long as they leave the doors open.
Just read my post @13.
Who knew these minor comments would be such a provocation!
I’ve always thought the idea of television cameras in courtrooms is a particularly vulgar example of the US tendency to turn everything into cheap entertainment. It has nothing at all to do with justice.
(Crikey there’s a lot of blank space on this thread. Did one or both of them have some sort of spasm again?)
Holms tries a trite lie:
You did, since I’ve been not just telling you I would do that, but have literally been doing that for years now.
In fact, I told you on this very thread, earlier.
—
You have decided to not see that stuff, so you don’t know, do ya?
Heh.
(Ignorance is the price of cowardice)
Imagine thinking blocking a known bad-faith commenter an act of cowardice. Such a silly and self-serving characterisation. It’s ‘bravery’ to read all of the comments on a blog.
Sure, John.
Imagine imagining that it’s all about me.
“(Did one or both of them have some sort of spasm again?)”
Who’d have possibly known I would respond to you yet again?
Face it, Holms.
The number of comments from me responding to the boogergobbler and to you far exceeds the number of comments that I would have otherwise made.
Tell me more about how getting under my skin is a brilliant tactic.
After all, it causes me to comment ever more, and that’s clearly your goal.
Heh.
So, Holms.
Having fun, yet?
I already do.
Well, yes. But the son of the imaginary character from an old UK TV show indulges in it.
No, it’s ordinary. Nothing special. Merely not cowardly.
The son of the imaginary character made it perfectly clear: the activity was taken for his peace of mind.
So that he could cope.
He has made noises about how wonderful it is that he doesn’t have to confront the comments of those from whom their comments upsets him.
(Now he makes querulous noises about what he may be missing, heh)
—
I don’t suppose you have any opinion to offer about the topic of this post, do ya?
(More important to be able to write “Sure, John.”)
How’s it go, Holms?
Ooooo… I don’t like John commenting.
I know… I’ll provoke some more comments from John, so that I can reassure myself that I don’t like John commenting.
Oooooo… who could have possibly known that provoking some more comments from John would result in more comments from John?
How upsetting!
Ah well. I’ll provoke some more comments from John, so that I can reassure myself that I don’t like John commenting.
[iterate ad nauseam]
(Simple minds are easy to model)
Ah, right. Missed this.
Sorry, garnetstar.
I genuinely like you are discussing the topic, not my character and attributes and how you feel about those.
So.
Be aware that I read every post in every thread, here.
But, sure.
You, there: “Tony @6, that trials must be public isn’t the *purpose* of the trial, it’s just another rule of trial procedure, and the judge is there to enforce all of those so that the trial is fair and gets justice.”
Let’s back up a bit, for context:
You: “I agree, regarding cameras in courtrooms, although watching trials is often fascinating. The only purpose of a trial is to get justice done, for both parties. Anything that might interfere with that shouldn’t be there, and I think that live videos feeds change the behaviors of all participants significantly.”
Me: “Um. There’s an audience. There are sketch artists.
Those are most certainly supererogatory to your alleged singular purpose, no?”
But fine. Let me adumbrate your stated stance, and you tell me where I am going wrong.
For you, there is only one singular purpose for a trial, and that is “to get justice done”.
I get that.
But, to get justice done, you also hold that “anything that might interfere with that shouldn’t be there”, in regards to cameras, because you reckon that “live videos feeds change the behaviors of all participants significantly” (which has a hidden premise that any change of behaviour impedes the successful doing of justice). Left unsaid is how the presence of sketch artists who also depict the scene (though of course, it’s an artist’s interpretation only) does not do the same thing.
And, to get justice done, one also must be Constitutional, so that the trial must be public.
And therefore, the Judge must allow for that publicity for the purposes of doing justice, but cameras are unfair whereas sketch artists are just fine.
And the publicity must be there, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the singular purpose of the trial.
…
How’s that?
I mean, a sketchpad or a camera.
Point and click, or look and draw.
I honestly can’t see the conceptual difference, but I can sure tell by looking at those sketches how inferior they are to actual photographs.
And then to claim they are more “realistic”… well.
Yeah, John, I think video interferes, by changing the behavior of all the participants (subtly), but the sketches don’t.
It was the OJ trial that made me, and many judges, think that. If you weren’t watching it, you would not believe the incessant noise and brou-ha-ha that the live video feed caused all over the nation. Witnesses, especially, whose every word, gesture, and even appearance, were analyzed and criticized and discussed nationwide, got rather reluctant to say something that might expose them to that. For them it was rather like suddenly being virally canceled on Twitter, with hate and harassment continuting indefinitely. Lawyers started doing their questioning of witnesses and the rest of their job for the cameras and not for making legal points, hoping to win the case in the court of public opinion. It was just hell. If the judge had been better at controlling the cameras, maybe it would have turned out better. Then I think it’d be OK.
That sort of nationwide scrutiny even happened to the judge: they still have news stories about him, and the rest, these many decades later. It was bad enough that every judge of a news-worthy (meaning, sensationalistic) case since then has refused to allow cameras, they got scared off.
I think, though, as you say, that if the judge was better and had the spine to control what the cameras are allowed to broadcast, and do their job of keeping the trial fair and only in pursuit of justice, then it’d be OK, same as sketch artist.
Oh yeah, and still photos: they were banned from courtrooms a long time ago because the old cameras used to have a loud click and a flash that disrupted things, especially if all the photographers continually took pictures. But now, don’t digital cameras have no click, and do they have no flash? (I don’t know). So it might be time to revisit banning still cameras and taking just photos, but maybe not live video streams.
“every judge of a news-worthy (meaning, sensationalistic) case since [OJ] has refused to allow cameras”
Yeah, i wish I’d been able to see at least something of the johnny Depp/amber heard trial… Oh no hang on I got sick of it after the first three minutes but my YouTube feed was polluted with it for weeks. If you missed that-well done.
YouTube is not a news organization. I’m sure most of the flood of crap about Depp vs Heard was bought and produced by the Depp side of the story.
Both true. Both completely irrelevant to the point.
Yes, the endless promotion on YouTube of the civil defamation case between two abusive celebrities is indeed irrelevant to the current subject.
If anything, it’s excellent evidence to support the actual point, which is that allowing cameras into courtrooms is prejudicial.
Tethys, look at this: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836
Why should I be worried about that John? Right-wing MAGA trolls spreading misinformation via social media is fairly predictable.
Because it features a courtroom photograph.
It’s not something to worry about, unless you worry about being wrong.
You: “allowing cameras into courtrooms is prejudicial”
Me: link to associated press featuring (quite prominently) a courtroom photograph, featuring Trump.
(That’s the relevance)
You must be very bored John. It’s irrelevant that photos of dumpster in court exist. He has spent quite a lot of time there this year.
Again, Tethys.
You: “allowing cameras into courtrooms is prejudicial”
Me: link to associated press featuring (quite prominently) a courtroom photograph, featuring Trump.
A camera was allowed into the courtroom, no?
According to you, it was prejudicial.
Is that not as relevant as it could be, given your claim?
So. What prejudice does that photograph provide and to whom, in your estimation?
—
Why do you imagine that?
What I am is being relevant.
Courtroom photos. Cameras. Sketch artists.
Again: here is the image: https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/0ee2203/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8640x5757+0+1/resize/980x653!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2Fdc%2Fdc%2F349e41364a30a382732c9e9da475%2Fap24150512245294.jpg
It is a photograph. In the Court. Taken by a camera.
Prejudicial, though to whom and on what basis is left, as yet, unstated.
Um, if you take your own claims as actual claims, not mere rhetoric:
(1) allowing cameras into courtrooms is prejudicial; and
(2) photos of dumpster in court exist,
then the fact that such photos exist and that their existence is supposedly prejudicial, is that not about as relevant as it could possibly be to your direct assertion?
—
(Surely, by now, you’d have got that fatuous attempted dissimulation is futile with me; apparently, not so)
The small detail about cameras being used by media to film court proceedings being an impediment to an impartial trial.
AKA- The actual topic, rather than yet another imaginary quibble in your quixotic quest to start a pointless argument.
ah, Tethys. Sweet-water goddess.
My quest has been conclusively justified:
(1) allowing cameras into courtrooms is prejudicial; and
(2) photos of dumpster in court exist,
therefore the trial was, according to you, prejudiced.
Of course, I know better than to even try to suggest you should perhaps try to justify on what basis you think this prejudice exists, and who it benefits.
Point being, you can’t really dispute the photo exists. There it is.
Taken by a camera. In the courtroom
(And therein, Trump is grinning like a loon)
—
Anyway. As the topic goes, it’s about courtroom sketch artists, not about the supposedly (but unsubstantiated) prejudicial nature of cameras and their resulting photographs.