Judge Mulls TV Ban in Terror Trial

Lawyers for Moussaoui and the television networks asked U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema to overturn a ban on cameras in federal courtrooms, drawing sharp opposition from prosecutors in a case that will focus on the al-Qaida organization.

The Justice Department contended a worldwide broadcast ``might assist al-Qaida in retaliating against the witnesses who testify against it.''

Moussaoui, a French citizen, sat in his green prison jumpsuit, sometimes cocking his head to one side as he listened to the lawyers. He stands accused of six conspiracy counts of being an accomplice to the Sept. 11 attacks and could receive the death penalty if convicted.

Brinkema pointed to two small cameras to indicate that television would not physically disrupt the courtroom -- but also said she was concerned about the potential effect on participants. The cameras on Wednesday provided closed-circuit coverage to an overflow room for those who couldn't find seats.

Televised images of the trial, set to begin Sept. 30, ``are forever out there,'' she said. ``It does pose a security risk. If witnesses felt that photographs would be out there, that could be a chilling problem.''

The judge said she would rule Tuesday at the earliest.

Moussaoui's lawyer, Edward MacMahon Jr. spoke briefly and supported a televised trial with some restrictions. Television, he said, would provide Moussaoui with ``an added layer of protection'' for a fair trial. The defense does not want replays later in the day unless the jury is sequestered -- kept in a secure location under control of U.S. marshals.

TV and C-SPAN networks, contended the federal ban on cameras was unconstitutional and noted that Court TV already has televised more than 750 state and local trials.

The right to observe a trial should not be limited to a few dozen spectators crammed into a courtroom, Levine said. ``Television is ... a normal part of the courtroom procedure.''

Wouldn't most television viewers just watch excerpts of the most dramatic moments, receiving a skewed version of the trial? the judge asked.

``If you don't have coverage, all you get is sound bites from people standing out on the steps,'' Levine responded.

Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Collery said there was no constitutional right for millions of television viewers to observe a trial, nor are trials moved to amphitheaters to accommodate the largest possible crowds.

Newer technology, including smaller cameras, would not stop witnesses from being self-conscious when they know they're on television, she argued.

``How do you get around the security concerns?'' Brinkema asked Levine.

The network lawyer responded the judge had authority to impose restrictions including obscuring the faces of witnesses who did not want to be seen.

An Internet provider has asked the court to allow an audio broadcast of the trial, and Brinkema raised this as an alternative.

``I still think dangers ... exist,'' Collery responded.

At least some courts in every state allow televised state and local trials. Other media organizations supporting a trial telecast include the Radio-Television News Directors Association, CNN, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, NBC, CBS and ABC.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, doesn't agree.

The conference banned still photography in 1946, extended the prohibition to broadcasting in 1972 and reconsidered its position in 1994 but refused to make changes. In 1996, the conference stated each court of appeals may decide whether to allow broadcasts in its geographic area, but strongly urged the appellate courts to support the ban.