21 January 2002
Source: Digital file purchased from Eastern Virginia District Court official reporter Norman Linnell; telephone (703) 549-4626.

See related case documents: http://cryptome.org/usa-v-zm-cd.htm


            1                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                   EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA    
            2                          Alexandria Division
            4    -------------------------------:
            5    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA       :
            6                                   :
                      -vs-                      :     Cr. No. 01-455-A
            7                                   :
            8    ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI,            :
                 a/k/a Shaqil,                  :  
            9    a/k/a Abu Khalid al Sahrawi,   :
                           Defendant.           :
           10                                   :
           13                           HEARING ON MOTIONS
                                         January 9, 2002
           16                   Before:  Leonie M. Brinkema, Judge
           19    APPEARANCES:
           20    Robert A. Spencer, Kenneth M. Karas and Elizabeth D. Collery, 
                 Counsel for the United States
           22    Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Edward B. MacMahon, Jr. and 
                 Gerald T. Zerkin, Counsel for the Defendant
           24    Lee Levine and Jay W. Brown, Counsel for C-SPAN and Court TV 
           25    The Defendant, Zacarias Moussaoui, in person

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              NOTE:  The hearing begins in the presence of the 

            2    defendant as follows:

            3              THE CLERK:  Criminal case 2001-455-A, the United 

            4    States of America versus Zacarias Moussaoui.

            5              Will counsel please note their appearance for the 

            6    record.

            7              MR. SPENCER:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Rob 

            8    Spencer, Ken Karas and Liza Collery, who is here from the 

            9    Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States.

           10              THE COURT:  Good morning. 

           11              MR. SPENCER:  Good morning. 

           12              MS. COLLERY:  Good morning. 

           13              MR. DUNHAM:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Frank 

           14    Dunham and Mr. Ed MacMahon and Mr. Gerry Zerkin on behalf of 

           15    the defendant Zacarias Moussaoui.

           16              THE COURT:  All right.  And the defendant is 

           17    present. 

           18              All right.  And for the intervenors?

           19              MR. BROWN:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Jay Ward 

           20    Brown for intervenors Courtroom Television Network and the 

           21    C-SPAN Networks. 

           22              And, Your Honor, I have with me this morning my 

           23    partner Lee Levine, whose motion for admission pro hac vice 

           24    the Court has already granted. 

           25              And I would ask that the Court hear from Mr. Levine 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    this morning.

            2              THE COURT:  All right.  That's fine. 

            3              We are here today to hear briefly from intervenors.  

            4    My understanding is that Court TV and C-SPAN have essentially 

            5    filed the same motion, and they are the intervenors.  And we 

            6    also have a series of amicus briefs which the Court has 

            7    received and has been able to go over. 

            8              So, Mr. Brown or Mr. Levine, whoever wishes to make 

            9    the argument for the intervenors, may do so. 

           10              MR. LEVINE:  Good morning, Your Honor.

           11              THE COURT:  Good morning.  You don't need to just 

           12    repeat what is in your papers.  Obviously you may want to 

           13    respond either to matters raised in the amicus briefs or to 

           14    the oppositions -- the opposition of the United States, as 

           15    well as the position of the defendant, which I think has 

           16    sometimes been mischaracterized as the defendant asking for 

           17    broadcasting.  There were a lot of caveats in their position.  

           18    And they basically, I would deem that to be a we don't oppose 

           19    if certain conditions apply, but not actually a request by 

           20    the defense for a broadcasting. 

           21              MR. LEVINE:  That's how I read it, Your Honor, as 

           22    well.

           23              THE COURT:  All right. 

           24              MR. LEVINE:  Your Honor, with that understanding, 

           25    let me get right to the points that the Government makes in 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    its opposition to our request. 

            2              The Government contends that the Supreme Court has 

            3    ruled that the right to observe criminal trials does not 

            4    encompass a right to observe on television in appropriate 

            5    cases.  This is simply not the case.  The Supreme Court has 

            6    never so held. 

            7              The Estes case on which the Government relied 

            8    involved a criminal defendant's claim that he was denied a 

            9    fair trial because proceedings in his case were televised.  

           10    That was not a suit involving a First Amendment right to 

           11    observe that trial via television.  There is dicta in the 

           12    case concerning the First Amendment, but fairly read, that 

           13    dicta does not survive the holdings of the Supreme Court in 

           14    the Richmond Newspapers case and its progeny. 

           15              The Government also relies on Nixon versus Warner 

           16    Communications.  That too was not a claim of a First 

           17    Amendment right to observe criminal trials through 

           18    television.  That was a claim for access to audio tapes 

           19    played in court. 

           20              The only First Amendment claim addressed in that 

           21    case, albeit in dicta, is one that we do not make, that the 

           22    press is entitled to greater rights than the public.  We do 

           23    not make that argument in this case. 

           24              Now, the Government also relies on a series of 

           25    appellate decisions, specifically the Hastings case out of 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    the Eleventh Circuit.  All of those cases do postdate 

            2    Richmond Newspapers, and all of them purport to hold that 

            3    Rule 53 is constitutional.  But these cases, which do not 

            4    include one from the Fourth Circuit which would be binding on 

            5    this Court, we respectfully submit were wrongly decided. 

            6              Specifically, they wrongly hold that a per se ban 

            7    on the observation of criminal trials through television is a 

            8    valid time, place or manner regulation. 

            9              Your Honor, we believe that that reasoning which is 

           10    adopted by the Government in its papers cannot survive the 

           11    Supreme Court's decision in City of Ladue versus Gilleo, 

           12    which is reported at 512 U.S. 43, decided by the court in 

           13    1994 after all of the cases in the Hastings line. 

           14              Ladue holds that a per se ban on a particular 

           15    medium of communication, in that case residential signs, 

           16    violates the First Amendment and cannot be justified as a 

           17    valid time, place or manner restriction even when other means 

           18    of exercising First Amendment rights remain available and 

           19    even when the ban is not content based precisely because the 

           20    court was not persuaded in that case that adequate 

           21    substitutes existed for the important medium of speech that 

           22    the city in that case had closed off through its per se ban. 

           23              After Ladue, Your Honor, a per se ban on 

           24    observation through television cannot be justified as a valid 

           25    time, place or manner restriction as the Government argues 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    here and as the Eleventh Circuit held in Hastings.

            2              THE COURT:  What about the amicus position from 

            3    National Narrowcast Network that an adequate substitution for 

            4    video broadcasting would be simultaneous radio broadcasting?

            5              MR. LEVINE:  Your Honor, the right to observe is 

            6    the right to observe what goes on in the courtroom during the 

            7    proceeding.  It is a right that extends beyond simply being 

            8    able to hear what goes on, but to see what goes on as well.  

            9    Including the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify, 

           10    unless there is a valid reason that this Court believes that 

           11    a particular witness should not -- face should not be shown.  

           12    But generally it is a right to observe.  And observation 

           13    involves seeing as well as hearing.

           14              THE COURT:  So, your argument then in part is that 

           15    within the First Amendment there is an inherent right to 

           16    observe? 

           17              MR. LEVINE:  That's what the court held in Richmond 

           18    Newspapers, Your Honor.  It is a right to observe.  It is not 

           19    a right to cram 60 or 70 people within the courtroom.  It is 

           20    a right to observe the criminal justice process at work, 

           21    specifically criminal trials. 

           22              And as the court held in Ladue, it can't be 

           23    justified as a valid time, place or manner restriction to not 

           24    allow a specific means of communication, in this case 

           25    television, when there is no adequate substitute. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              In this case where the entire nation has a direct 

            2    interest in these proceedings, if not the entire world, it is 

            3    not an adequate substitute for the right to observe this 

            4    proceeding to have the rest of the country and the rest of 

            5    the world in fact rely on the few people that can fit inside 

            6    this courtroom. 

            7              To the extent that Rule 53 is a per se ban which it 

            8    appears on its face and has been interpreted by other courts, 

            9    it violates the City of Ladue stricture on no per se bans 

           10    constituting valid time, place or manner restrictions. 

           11              And it also violates the admonition of the Supreme 

           12    Court in the Globe Newspaper case that a per se rule denying 

           13    the right to observe any portion of a criminal trial is 

           14    unconstitutional because each case needs to be decided on its 

           15    own facts and this Court needs to exercise its discretion to 

           16    determine whether there are competing interests that require 

           17    any specific part of the proceedings in this case not to be 

           18    made available to the entire public.

           19              THE COURT:  Did Court TV or C-SPAN try to intervene 

           20    in the McVeigh prosecution? 

           21              MR. LEVINE:  Not formally, Your Honor.  There were 

           22    informal discussions, but there was no formal motion made in 

           23    the McVeigh case.

           24              THE COURT:  Has a similar motion been made in any 

           25    of the--  How about the embassy bombings case in New York? 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              MR. LEVINE:  No.

            2              THE COURT:  So, this is the first one in the last 

            3    couple of years--

            4              MR. LEVINE:  This is the first one since--  I think 

            5    the last case in the line that starts with Hastings was 

            6    decided in 1986.

            7              THE COURT:  We didn't see much case law out of the 

            8    '90s at all on this topic. 

            9              MR. LEVINE:  That's correct, Your Honor.  And the 

           10    big development in the '90s, if I may say so, was the advent 

           11    of Court TV in 1991.  Since 1991 when Court TV began 

           12    televising, it has telecast over 750 trials in this country. 

           13              People are now comfortable with the notion, in a 

           14    way they weren't in the mid '80s when these other cases were 

           15    decided, that television is an unobtrusive medium both within 

           16    the courtroom and something that the people of this country 

           17    are familiar with as something that they see on television 

           18    all the time. 

           19              It does not have, as studies done after the cases 

           20    that were cited by the Government, including the Hastings 

           21    case, have confirmed, it does not have that kind of impact on 

           22    the audience that it might have had back in the early '60s 

           23    when the Estes case was decided, or even earlier in the '80s 

           24    when cases like the Hastings case were decided. 

           25              Television is now something that people believe is 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    a normal part of courtroom procedure.  The fact that the 

            2    federal courts have not yet allowed television into criminal 

            3    proceedings is not -- is lost on most witnesses, is lost on 

            4    the public generally.  In their world, cameras are something 

            5    that are in courtrooms in the '90s and now in the new 

            6    millennium. 

            7              So, we don't believe that the fear as hypothesized 

            8    by the Government with respect to the effect of this on the 

            9    administration of justice would be a negative one.  We 

           10    believe for the reasons stated by the Supreme Court in the 

           11    Richmond Newspapers case and the cases that followed it, that 

           12    it will be a positive one.  Especially in this case where 

           13    people are going to be watching to make their own judgments 

           14    about whether this accused received a fair trial.

           15              THE COURT:  Well, how adequate can the judgment of 

           16    the public be about whether a trial is fair or not if they 

           17    haven't sat through literally from gavel to gavel the entire 

           18    proceedings? 

           19              MR. LEVINE:  Your Honor, we don't require that 

           20    somebody who comes to sit in the back of the courtroom in 

           21    this trial or in any trial agree to sit there for every 

           22    minute of the case.  They come sometimes and they don't come 

           23    other times. 

           24              If anything, the availability of television and a 

           25    full archival, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the trial will 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    provide a greater measure of being able to insure or for the 

            2    public being able to insure in their own minds or make a 

            3    judgment about the fairness of the trial than sporadic press 

            4    reports.

            5              THE COURT:  But, you know, there are those who say 

            6    that just the contrary occurs.  That is, given the infamous 

            7    sound bites and clips and snippets that occur by necessity on 

            8    most broadcasts, what the public is shown about a trial that 

            9    is being broadcast is more often than not the most dramatic 

           10    or the most outrageous events in what may be a two-month 

           11    trial with a lot of very routine, normal criminal activity, 

           12    criminal trial activity, which can also drastically skew the 

           13    public impression as to whether justice is or is not being 

           14    doled out. 

           15              MR. LEVINE:  Your Honor, I would make just the 

           16    opposite argument.  And I think that experience and the 

           17    studies, especially the most recent ones that we cite in our 

           18    papers bear out, which is that when you don't have a camera 

           19    in the courtroom, especially one that is doing gavel-to-gavel 

           20    coverage like Court TV and C-SPAN have requested to do in 

           21    this case, that's all you get is sound bites. 

           22              All you get are people coming out of the courthouse 

           23    and standing on the courthouse steps and talking about what 

           24    they perceived to be the most dramatic or interesting moment.  

           25    And you have, instead of the video of the actual trial 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    playing in background, you have a sketch artist's rendering 

            2    of what it looked like in the courtroom at the time that 

            3    happened. 

            4              What gavel-to-gavel television coverage does is 

            5    allow people who want to see the whole thing, who want to see 

            6    significant portions of it, the ability to do so.  They don't 

            7    have that ability if you don't allow cameras and you are 

            8    relying solely on secondhand reports of people who are in the 

            9    courtroom. 

           10              And that is the fundamental point of our argument, 

           11    that the constitutional right is one to observe, not to 

           12    receive secondhand reports, no matter how well intentioned 

           13    that they are.

           14              THE COURT:  Well, you know, this courthouse and the 

           15    court reporters who will be handling this case have realtime 

           16    court reporting.  Which means that practically simultaneous, 

           17    practically simultaneous transcripts will be available of the 

           18    trial proceedings. 

           19              Now, that, of course, is the official record.  All 

           20    of the appellate courts in the country to date work off of 

           21    transcript record of the proceedings.  So, they are obviously 

           22    accurate and reliable. 

           23              Why is that not more than sufficient to fully 

           24    advise the public at large as to what is going on in the 

           25    courtroom? 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              MR. LEVINE:  A, Your Honor, because it is not 

            2    contemporaneous.  It is delayed at least somewhat. 

            3              Second, because it is not a right to observe either 

            4    visually or by sound or both as somebody who would be sitting 

            5    in this courtroom would have the ability to do. 

            6              It, most importantly, I think, takes away from the 

            7    perception of fairness that somebody who is able to watch the 

            8    proceedings either here in the courtroom or on television 

            9    will be able to perceive as this case goes forward. 

           10              Relying on a cold transcript disseminated sometime 

           11    after the fact inevitably raises questions about whether the 

           12    transcript actually captures -- accurately captures what went 

           13    on in the courtroom.

           14              THE COURT:  So you are saying that appellate courts 

           15    for all these 200 years have been working off an inaccurate 

           16    record in resolving significant issues?  I mean, that's all 

           17    the appellate courts have.

           18              MR. LEVINE:  Appellate courts are looking at them 

           19    for a different reason, Your Honor.  They are looking at them 

           20    to make determinations of law with respect to issues raised 

           21    on appeal in adjudicated cases.  They are not there for the 

           22    reason--  They are not looking at them for the reasons that 

           23    Chief Justice Berger enumerated in the Richmond Newspapers 

           24    case, the need for community catharsis in the face of an 

           25    important criminal trial like this case, the need to have the 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    public satisfied that the proceedings have been fair. 

            2              Those are First Amendment issues, those are First 

            3    Amendment interests the Supreme Court tells us in Richmond 

            4    Newspapers.  And those can and are vindicated only by a right 

            5    to observe.  That's what the Supreme Court held in those 

            6    cases.

            7              THE COURT:  All right.  Let me hear from the United 

            8    States. 

            9              MR. LEVINE:  Thank you, Your Honor.

           10              THE COURT:  Miss Collery, you are going to be the 

           11    spokesperson?  

           12              MS. COLLERY:  Yes, Your Honor.  Good morning.

           13              THE COURT:  Good morning. 

           14              MS. COLLERY:  Your Honor, the Government opposes 

           15    the request by Court TV to televise the pretrial and trial 

           16    proceedings in this case.  We oppose that request because it 

           17    is inconsistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 

           18    and Local Rule 83.3. 

           19              Moreover, the suggestion of Court TV and the amicus 

           20    filers that those rules are unconstitutional is incorrect.  

           21    The Supreme Court has specifically held in the Estes decision 

           22    that there is no First Amendment right to broadcast or 

           23    televise criminal proceedings. 

           24              Court TV contends that that discussion in Estes is 

           25    dicta, but that is incorrect.  At issue in Estes is whether 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    the defendant had a due process right not to have his 

            2    proceeding televised. 

            3              In order to decide whether the defendant had a due 

            4    process right not to have the proceeding televised, the court 

            5    necessarily needed to consider whether the press had a First 

            6    Amendment right to televise it. 

            7              It would obviously be an impossible state of 

            8    affairs if the court had held in one case that the defendant 

            9    had a due process right not to have it televised and then had 

           10    subsequently decided in another case that the press had a 

           11    First Amendment right to televise. 

           12              So, it had to be decided in Estes, and a majority 

           13    of the Supreme Court considered it and decided against the 

           14    media's claims.

           15              THE COURT:  Of course, now the intervenor has 

           16    actually couched the argument slightly differently as I have 

           17    listened to it.  In part arguing that there is a right to 

           18    observe inherent in the First Amendment for the public at 

           19    large, and that that right to observe cannot be exercised if 

           20    matters are not broadcast. 

           21              That's different from saying, we have a right to 

           22    broadcast.  They are saying, in part, there is a right of the 

           23    public to observe. 

           24              MS. COLLERY:  The public's right to observe stems 

           25    from the Richmond Newspapers case. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              THE COURT:  Right. 

            2              MS. COLLERY:  And that decision considered whether 

            3    the Government could summarily close court proceedings, 

            4    proceedings which had historically been open to the public, 

            5    not just for decades, but for centuries.  In fact, in the 

            6    opinion itself they trace the historical practice of open 

            7    court proceedings in England before the Norman conquests. 

            8              And so that in Richmond Newspapers what the court 

            9    did was to look at that long-standing historical practice of 

           10    open court proceedings and to find that that historical 

           11    practice, although not enumerated in the First Amendment, was 

           12    nonetheless implicit in the First Amendment. 

           13              The situation here is entirely different, Your 

           14    Honor, because there is no long-standing, accepted, 

           15    uncontradicted tradition of televising court proceedings in 

           16    the United States. 

           17              In Richmond Newspapers and in many other cases the 

           18    court has recognized that the right of access is simply a 

           19    right of some members of the public and of the media to 

           20    observe the proceedings.  The court has rejected the argument 

           21    that that entitles everyone to observe. 

           22              In fact, in Richmond Newspapers in a footnote they 

           23    noted that seating in courtrooms is limited.  And that the 

           24    courts are entitled to allocate those seats in a fair manner 

           25    because not every member of the public can possibly attend. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              There is not a long-standing historical tradition 

            2    of cameras in the courtrooms or any other kind of broadcast, 

            3    including radio broadcasts. 

            4              Nor is there a historical tradition of maximizing 

            5    access to the courts.  While it is historical for criminal 

            6    proceedings to be open to the public, it has never been 

            7    thought necessary to hold them in amphitheaters in cases of 

            8    great public importance so that the public -- the number of 

            9    people from the public can be maximized.  That is just not 

           10    part of our long-standing tradition. 

           11              And so, the right that was recognized in Richmond 

           12    Newspapers is fundamentally tied to the history of our 

           13    criminal proceedings.

           14              THE COURT:  And I understand that.  And, of course, 

           15    the law is by its nature a somewhat conservative and 

           16    historically-oriented discipline. 

           17              But Court TV does also point out, and it is a 

           18    reality of the modern world, that technology does change 

           19    things.  And part of their argument--  And as I said, the 

           20    paucity of cases out of the 1990s would suggest that maybe we 

           21    are in a hiatus at this point.  That the technology has 

           22    changed.  And with the changing technology, some of the 

           23    original legitimate concerns about the intrusiveness of the 

           24    media in the courtroom have either totally been eliminated or 

           25    significantly decreased.  The size of the cameras being 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    almost invisible. 

            2              I mean, we have got two cameras in here today 

            3    because, as you may or may not know, there is a live 

            4    audio-visual feed into the other courtroom should we not have 

            5    had enough seating in this room in our effort to increase the 

            6    number of members of the public who can watch these 

            7    proceedings.  We have been able to double the capacity of 

            8    seats in this courthouse. 

            9              And I don't think--  I don't know, maybe you have 

           10    noticed this one, but I am sure the other one over the exit 

           11    sign most people haven't.  And I am told that this is not 

           12    even the full state of the technology at this point. 

           13              So, I mean, this may be a somewhat dangerous 

           14    argument to simply look at the history of things.  As they 

           15    point out, things are changing.  And certainly in the state 

           16    judiciary, televised proceedings are no longer unusual. 

           17              MR. SPENCER:  Technology changes, Your Honor, but 

           18    technology has not eliminated the legitimate concerns that 

           19    have been expressed about televising court proceedings.

           20              THE COURT:  All right. 

           21              MS. COLLERY:  I think it was Chief Justice Warren 

           22    in the Estes decision who pointed out the evils of televising 

           23    do not stem from the sounds or the microphones.  They stem 

           24    from the witnesses' awareness of the fact that he or she is 

           25    being televised. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              That awareness has a possibility of affecting the 

            2    witnesses' testimony, has a possibility of affecting the 

            3    jurors, has a possibility of affecting everyone in the 

            4    courtroom.  And technological changes that make cameras 

            5    unobtrusive do not respond to that very legitimate concern. 

            6              I would also like to comment on the argument that 

            7    Court TV advances essentially that the use of cameras in 

            8    state courtrooms has been overwhelmingly successful and that 

            9    it has established a sort of background against -- for 

           10    recognition of this constitutional right. 

           11              There was attached to one of the amicus briefs 

           12    filed yesterday a state survey.  And what I thought that 

           13    state survey revealed is that there is a wide variety of 

           14    practices in state courts, but that very few state courts 

           15    recognize the broad right of access that the media is arguing 

           16    for in this case. 

           17              There are numerous restrictions in state courts on 

           18    televising.  Some states require consent of the parties.  

           19    Some states allow witnesses to opt out.  Some states restrict 

           20    televising in criminal proceedings.

           21              And, therefore, the practice in state court does 

           22    not support the recognition of the broad presumption of a 

           23    right of the media to televise criminal proceedings.  That is 

           24    just not where the law is now. 

           25              So, not only do technological changes not eliminate 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    the legitimate concerns, but the evolution of the law is 

            2    nowhere near the point of establishing throughout the nation 

            3    a sort of background understanding that televising courtroom 

            4    proceedings is appropriate and doesn't risk harming the 

            5    administration of justice.

            6              THE COURT:  All right.  Is there anything else that 

            7    you want to address that you feel you have not adequately 

            8    covered in your brief? 

            9              MS. COLLERY:  There was a brief filed by the 

           10    intervenor National Narrowcast Network, and we filed a 

           11    response to that.

           12              THE COURT:  Right. 

           13              MS. COLLERY:  As long as the Court has received our 

           14    response, then I don't need to address that, has an 

           15    opportunity to read it.  There was an argument there--

           16              THE COURT:  Most of your argument--  That's the 

           17    radio intervenor. 

           18              MS. COLLERY:  That's correct.

           19              THE COURT:  Who has argued as an alternative to 

           20    video broadcasting, because some of your opposition was based 

           21    upon security concerns, the fact--  And this is certainly a 

           22    technological fact that does I think -- and at least were 

           23    taken into consideration by the courts.  With video 

           24    broadcasting, and this is totally different from a person who 

           25    sits in the courtroom and watches the trial or the sketch 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    artist who sketches the people, with video broadcasting there 

            2    would be a permanent photographic capturing of the images of 

            3    anybody who is in that courtroom.

            4              And given the nature of the Internet these days, 

            5    that means that the photographs of the Marshals, the 

            6    prosecutors, defense attorneys, the judge, and witnesses if 

            7    those witnesses are being broadcast, are forever out there in 

            8    the public domain. 

            9              In serious criminal cases with serious allegations, 

           10    that does pose a potential security risk that certainly Judge 

           11    Becker has addressed and you-all have mentioned some of his 

           12    comments in your papers, but it is legitimate. 

           13              And certainly if witnesses felt that there was any 

           14    possibility that their photographs would be out there, I 

           15    think that could be a very chilling problem. 

           16              The radio folks, of course, come back and say, 

           17    well, you know, we are a compromise.  We permit live coverage 

           18    of the proceedings, but because no pictures are transmitted, 

           19    the worst that happens is that people's voices may be 

           20    captured and may be communicated around the world, but it is 

           21    relatively difficult to identify someone on the street by 

           22    their voice.  Whereas it is very easy to identify them on the 

           23    street by their picture. 

           24              And so, National Narrowcast's position, as I 

           25    understand it, is that they offer the ideal compromise in 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    that they increase public access.  If there is this general 

            2    right to observe, it is a sound observation rather than a 

            3    visual observation, and that it avoids many of the problems 

            4    that you point to in your papers. 

            5              Do you want to address that?

            6              MS. COLLERY:  Yes, Your Honor.  There may be policy 

            7    reasons why a broadcast of this proceeding, an audio 

            8    broadcast of this proceedings over the radio or over the 

            9    Internet would be preferable to a television broadcast of the 

           10    proceeding, but the relevant rules prohibit both.

           11              THE COURT:  But what if the rules didn't exist?  I 

           12    am just asking you, if the rules were not there, what would 

           13    the basis be for your opposition to an audio broadcast of the 

           14    trial? 

           15              MS. COLLERY:  Well, I am not sure I can say on 

           16    behalf of the United States what position we would take in 

           17    this case if the rules didn't exist or if the rules permitted 

           18    a radio broadcast of this case. 

           19              I still think that the dangers posed by televised 

           20    broadcasts exist with respect to radio broadcasts.  Some of 

           21    them may be lessened somewhat.  But I think the question of 

           22    nervousness of witnesses, of self-consciousness of court 

           23    participants, of a fear of witnesses, a fear of witnesses who 

           24    are unwilling to come to the United States and testify, many 

           25    of the concerns remain. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              And I can't say, Your Honor, that the United States 

            2    would necessarily agree to a radio broadcast if the rules 

            3    that prohibited it didn't exist.  I think it would, you know, 

            4    it would require careful consideration.

            5              THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you. 

            6              MS. COLLERY:  Thank you.

            7              THE COURT:  Mr. Dunham. 

            8              MR. DUNHAM:  Mr. MacMahon will address the Court.

            9              THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. MacMahon. 

           10              MR. MACMAHON:  Good morning, Your Honor.

           11              THE COURT:  Good morning. 

           12              MR. MACMAHON:  Your Honor, I know how carefully you 

           13    read the submissions that we file with the Court, so I will 

           14    be very brief. 

           15              Mr. Moussaoui doesn't object to Court TV's motion 

           16    to have the trial televised subject to the conditions that 

           17    are set forth in that memorandum.  He believes it would 

           18    assist for an added layer of protection to give him the 

           19    belief of a fair trial in this court and for other people to 

           20    see and watch. 

           21              And unless the Court has any questions for me, I 

           22    will just sit on down, Your Honor. 

           23              THE COURT:  All right.  That's fine. 

           24              MR. MACMAHON:  Thank you.

           25              THE COURT:  Then I will give the intervenor about 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    four or five minutes, if they want, to rebut any of the 

            2    discussion we have had today. 

            3              MR. LEVINE:  Your Honor, I just wanted to briefly 

            4    address one point that the Government made, which is this 

            5    notion that the right to observe does not include and 

            6    historically has not included the right to observe by large 

            7    numbers of people. 

            8              If the Court reads Chief Justice Berger's decision 

            9    in the second Press Enterprise case, I believe, you will see 

           10    a discussion of the treason trial of Aaron Burr which was 

           11    held in this jurisdiction, and in which Chief Justice 

           12    Marshall presided as trial judge. 

           13              In that case at the preliminary hearing, not even 

           14    the trial, there were so many people who wanted to observe in 

           15    the courtroom that Chief Justice Marshall adjourned the 

           16    proceedings and moved them over to the House of Burgesses 

           17    where there were more seats so that anybody in the community 

           18    who wanted to come and see this momentous event in the 

           19    history of our nation was able to do that. 

           20              Those cases, the Aaron Burr treason trial, other 

           21    cases in the early days of this republic, raise many of the 

           22    same issues that this case raises.  In those days there was 

           23    no television, and there was no question that anybody in the 

           24    public who wanted to observe that trial or those trials had a 

           25    right to do so. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              So, I think historical tradition as well as the 

            2    advances of technology that allow television to be a 

            3    substitute, that allows the right to observe to be vindicated 

            4    in the same way that Chief Justice Marshal did in the Burr 

            5    case, apply equally.  And that there is a historical 

            6    tradition of the public's right to observe in numbers 

            7    commensurate with the interest in the case.

            8              That's the only additional item I have.

            9              THE COURT:  How do you get around the security 

           10    concerns?  Because, you know, even if the Court found that 

           11    there was a constitutional right for you to broadcast, even 

           12    if we found that the rules as they exist were 

           13    unconstitutional, the Court would still have to look at the 

           14    specifics of this case.  And the Government has raised some 

           15    legitimate concerns about security. 

           16              And the one issue that you never addressed in your 

           17    papers was this issue about the permanency of the visual 

           18    images of the trial participants.  There is no other form of 

           19    media that would do that. 

           20              And certainly individuals, even if all 400 million 

           21    Americans or how many we are now came and sat in the 

           22    courtroom and watched, they would leave the courtroom and, 

           23    yes, they would have seen the people, but memories fade over 

           24    time.  And certainly those images would not be publishable on 

           25    the Internet and around the world, et cetera. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              In a case like this where the allegations, of 

            2    course, involve allegations of international terrorism, the 

            3    Government has voiced, among other arguments, concerns about, 

            4    legitimate concerns about the security of the people who 

            5    participate in the trial. 

            6              I mean, what if we had a trial and everybody's face 

            7    were blocked out if we were televising it because of concerns 

            8    about we don't want these images out there? 

            9              Address for me the security issue that video 

           10    broadcasting raises in the context of complex criminal 

           11    trials. 

           12              MR. LEVINE:  Several points, Your Honor.  First of 

           13    all, we take those concerns very seriously.  In our papers we 

           14    attempted to point out to the Court that you as the trial 

           15    judge have ample discretion to place conditions or 

           16    restrictions on the telecasting of this trial commensurate 

           17    with legitimate competing interests of a compelling nature 

           18    that the Government or others or the defendant may bring 

           19    forward.  And we have to take each of those on a case-by-case 

           20    basis based on the facts of the case. 

           21              In this case, as in all others that Court TV has 

           22    ever televised, if a witness indicates that it wishes to have 

           23    its face obscured and not shown on television, we will honor 

           24    that.  And the Court, if the Court ordered that, we would 

           25    comply with that. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              There may be other restrictions necessitated 

            2    because of the nature of this case and the terrorism-related 

            3    issues that it raises.  Court TV recognizes that Your Honor 

            4    has broad discretion.  And that Court TV is unlikely or 

            5    C-SPAN is unlikely to be in a position to second-guess 

            6    representations made by the Government about security 

            7    threats.  And the Court has ample discretion to deal with 

            8    those. 

            9              It would seem to me, however, that there are 

           10    numbers of witnesses, large portions of the proceeding for 

           11    which television coverage would serve a valuable purpose that 

           12    do not involve terrorism risks:  Opening and closing 

           13    statements, witnesses who do not wish or do not believe that 

           14    their faces need to be obscured, and there are certainly 

           15    other examples. 

           16              But large portions of this trial, it seems to me, 

           17    and likely the vast majority of this trial could be done in a 

           18    way that television could play a part in it. 

           19              There have been cases, you have alluded to the 

           20    cases in New York involving other terrorist acts, in which 

           21    there has been some case law discussion about the court's 

           22    ability to close the courtroom during testimony of some 

           23    witnesses based on security concerns.  And if something rose 

           24    to the nature of requiring that, it is a compelling interest 

           25    to close the courtroom that is required, but I am not saying 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1    that there would never be a circumstance in which that would 

            2    be appropriate. 

            3              The point I think is that you retain ample 

            4    discretion, like you do in any case, to make sure that 

            5    security issues are dealt with in an appropriate way.  And 

            6    Court TV is not at all suggesting that you are deprived or 

            7    limited in that discretion in any way.

            8              THE COURT:  All right. 

            9              I want to thank you for what is obviously a very 

           10    interesting argument, has been an interesting argument.  

           11    These are significant issues. 

           12              As you-all recognize, you are asking the Court to 

           13    declare unconstitutional a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

           14    that has been enacted by the Judicial Conference of the 

           15    United States, approved by the Supreme Court and the United 

           16    States Congress.  One does not take that job lightly. 

           17              So, I am going to think about this. 

           18              I want to tell you, so that our Clerk's Office is 

           19    not inundated with phone calls, there will be no decision 

           20    issuing before Tuesday of next week at the earliest.  So, 

           21    don't bother calling, it won't be there. 

           22              And I am not even guaranteeing you will get it on 

           23    Tuesday, but I do want to get the decision out quickly 

           24    because we are keeping this case on as fast a track as we 

           25    can. 

                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626


            1              All right.  The defendant is remanded at this time. 

            2              We will recess court. 

            3          ------------------------------------------------
                                         HEARING CONCLUDED
















           20                   I certify that the foregoing is a true and

           21         accurate transcription of my stenographic notes.

           23                        _________________________________
                                     Norman B. Linnell, CP, CM, CE


                               Norman B. Linnell  OCR-USDC/EDVA  (703)549-4626