Trump trial as spectacle: Not like OJ’s, but a media frenzy all the same

Former President Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial has featured gripping, and at times steamy, testimony from a former tabloid publisher on the secrets of his business, a porn star on her alleged tryst with Mr. Trump, and a former Trump lawyer on how his boss allegedly paid to silence the porn star.

For the media outlets reporting on every twist and turn, the monthlong event has provided a steady stream of content for readers and viewers – despite the fact that, at heart, the case is actually about the falsification of business records. By all accounts the jurors, too, have paid rapt attention.

But while the Trump case has generated heavy coverage on cable news and in social media, it has not risen to “trial of the century” levels, comparable to the O.J. Simpson trial. Indeed, a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll found that only 16% of respondents said they were following the trial “very closely.” Another 32% said they were following it “somewhat closely.”

There have been no large-scale demonstrations or altercations outside the courthouse. Outbursts inside have also been limited.

One reason it did not become the O.J. Simpson trial may be because New York law prevents cameras inside the courtroom. Former NFL star O.J. Simpson’s 1995 trial for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman was carried live on TV, and generated historic levels of audience and media interest. By contrast, the cable news analysts parsing every new development in Mr. Trump’s legal proceedings have had to do it based on secondhand reports from journalists in the room. 

“Without the cameras in the courtroom, the trial averted some of the spectacle and theatrics of a televised trial like the O.J. Simpson case,” says Roy Gutterman, director of Syracuse University’s Tully Center for Free Speech, in an email.

Chaos and the defense

In closing arguments on May 28, the defense went first. Then the prosecution attempted to convince 12 jurors that Mr. Trump falsified business records to cover up his alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels because he was worried that if it became public, it would damage his chances in the 2016 presidential election.

Mr. Trump has denied the affair with Ms. Daniels, as well as all other charges. His defense argued that the central figure in the prosecution’s case, former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, is a proven liar whose testimony cannot be trusted. Mr. Cohen was the only witness to tie Mr. Trump directly to payments to Ms. Daniels, though circumstantial evidence did point to the former president’s involvement. 

The prosecution has the higher bar to clear, given that it must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That means it must convince jurors of a narrative that explains what happened. 

The defense does not have to offer an alternative story. It simply must convince the jury that reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case remains. Defense attorneys can throw any number of hamburgers against the wall to see if any ketchup sticks. Their argument does not necessarily have to be coherent.

“Chaos, unpredictable things, things that are not related to proof of guilt generally favor the defense,” says Dilan Esper, a 29-year civil litigator in California.

Media coverage is one of those unpredictable things. Reporters want stories, and their efforts can sometimes upend prosecution plans. In the O.J. Simpson trial, prosecutors had a witness ready to testify that she saw the ex-football star driving fast and erratically outside his ex-wife’s home around the time she was killed. But she sold her story for $5,000 to the tabloid TV show “Hard Copy,” and lead prosecutor Marcia Clark decided she was too tainted to put on the stand.

As far as we know, nothing like that has occurred in the Trump trial. But the former president and his attorneys have followed a strategy of trying to create as much news as possible, in part because they know reporters will eat it up. Thus the daily displays of Republican officials, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, showing up in court to support Mr. Trump and hold their own press conferences.

Mr. Trump’s insistence that he would testify – though he didn’t in the end – may also have been a calculated move. Perhaps Mr. Trump really did want to take the stand. But in many big trials, defense attorneys tell the media that the defendant is considering speaking under oath. It forces prosecutors to waste time preparing for something the defense knows isn’t going to happen.

The media can’t help but report the “may testify” gambit as news. “In fact, [they’re] being played,” says Mr. Esper.

Drama and ratings

The Trump criminal trial has produced a number of dramatic courtroom moments. Ms. Daniels’ pointillistic recounting of her alleged Trump tryst – she recalled the shampoo in his bathroom was not just Pert, but Pert Plus – stilled the audience, according to reporters who were there. The cross-examination of Ms. Daniels was tense as defense lawyers tried to portray her as a money-driven opportunist.

Mr. Cohen’s turn on the stand was grueling, stretching over days. At one point, a defense attorney was shouting at him as they questioned whether he had really talked with Mr. Trump about payments to Ms. Daniels. Mr. Cohen remained largely composed, and it remains to be seen how the jury interpreted this key testimony.

For sheer drama, the most memorable moment was perhaps a May 20 incident that revolved around lawyer Robert Costello.

It began when Judge Juan Merchan took umbrage at what he felt was Mr. Costello’s impudence on the stand concerning overruled objections by the defense.

“When there is a witness on the stand, if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say ‘jeez,’ OK?” said the judge with uncharacteristic fire.

Judge Merchan then tried to clear the court so he could rebuke Mr. Costello. But the media didn’t want to go.

“This is an open courtroom. It is open to the people, open to the public. You can’t throw us out!” said one journalist, unnamed in the official court transcript.

A press lawyer got involved. Judicial staff kept politely pushing. Eventually, they moved the audience into a hallway.

“Let the record reflect ... that the court officers had great difficulty clearing the courtroom, because the courtroom is made up, primarily, of the press,” Judge Merchan said.

At the end of the O.J. Simpson trial, 150 million people tuned in to watch the verdict live.

By contrast, Americans will not be able to see the verdict being read from the New York courtroom where the Trump trial is playing out. 

When the verdict comes down, as throughout the trial, the public will be relying on reporters and commentators, “who did a commendable job of delivering detailed coverage and analysis,” says Professor Gutterman, himself a former reporter.

Still, no description or report is the same as seeing things live on television – and some observers say that may have been to the detriment of the American people in this case. 

“There would have been significant problems and risks of things getting out of control had this case been televised,” says Professor Gutterman. “But I still believe open courts is important to facilitating the public’s understanding of the law and criminal justice.”

Editor's note: As closing arguments in the trial occurred, two paragraphs in the story were updated to reflect that.