TV trials Public

TV trials
Public's right to know is not predicated on defendant's right to a spectacle

Jan 5, 2002

Zacarias Moussaoui, the first person to be charged as an accomplice in the Sept. 11 attacks, has asked a judge to allow his trial to be televised.

Moussaoui, 33, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, is accused of conspiring to help the hijackers and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network plot the September attacks. He was charged with six conspiracy charges, including four that carry a maximum penalty of death.

Although Moussaoui has been in federal custody on immigration charges since August, when he aroused suspicions at a Minnesota flight school, the indictment says he conspired with the Sept. 11 hijackers to kill and maim victims in the United States. The indictment doesn’t explain his role in the attacks, but Attorney General John Ashcroft called Moussaoui an active participant with the 19 hijackers who crashed four jetliners in New York, Washington and western Pennsylvania, killing more than 3,000 people.

He is accused of pursuing some of their same activities by taking flight training in the United States, inquiring about crop dusting and purchasing flight deck training videos. Moussaoui received money in July and August from Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, an alleged member of a German terrorist cell who was a roommate of Mohammed Atta, the suspected ringleader in the attacks, the indictment charges. The FBI contends Bin al-Shibh, a fugitive, may have been planning to be the 20th hijacker.

Moussaoui, who has already shown signs that he intends to manipulate the criminal-justice system to the extent that he is allowed to do so, declined to enter a plea in court earlier this week. "In the name of Allah, I do not have anything to plead. I enter no plea. Thank you very much," he said. A federal judge entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf after consulting with one of his court-appointed attorneys.

On one hand, there is (and should be) little secret about what happens in a courtroom. Televising Moussaoui’s trial would allow people the world over to see the evidence themselves, or at least that evidence which the federal government believes will not compromise national security or its case against other conspirators. If Moussaoui is convicted, citizens of Muslim nations would have access to the information that convicted him, and the United States would have answered a criticism heard frequently since Sept. 11. Should the opposite happen and Moussaoui win an acquittal, American citizens would be able to see just exactly how that happened.

In theory, that openness would serve us well.

But the memory of the O.J. Simpson trial is fresh in our minds, and few are anxious to repeat that experience with a far more significant case. Even the staunchest advocates of the public’s right to observe can see that the purpose of a trial is justice, not entertainment, and media coverage must be managed carefully so that it doesn’t interfere with that objective. It can be done, but it will require considerable planning and consultation between all the parties involved. Cameras need not be intrusive, and jury members can be shielded from learning what testimony the media has found worthy of emphasis. Our commitment to democracy is based on the faith that when armed with the appropriate information, citizens are capable of making the correct choices.

Also to be considered is our hope that Moussaoui’s case is far from being the last or the most important of those stemming from Sept. 11. Will we want to watch dozens of trials similar to this one? The way he is treated will set precedents for the treatment all other defendants will expect.

There are good reasons to televise a trial, but the fact that a terrorism suspect demands the attention is not one of them. Citizens of the United States have the right to a trial before a jury of their peers, but that doesn’t extend to being tried before every television viewer in the world.