A Guide to Covering the Manafort Trial

Combining old school and new, though the charge hasn't changed. Thanks for the vicarious view.

If you're both with Sharon, how does she distinguish (when you confer) between which Emily an order or thing is meant for?

Thanks for the insight into what a journalist's life can still be like sometimes. I was actually a little entertained (which I definitely do not require of the News!).

Do lawyers tell their indicted clients and their spouses to smile when entering or leaving the court house, no matter how they feel, so they won't look guilty on the TV news and in newspapers? This always seems bizarre to me. They must practice in front of a mirror.

I was involved with Wisconsin's highly successful cameras in court program from 1976 (when we petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to gain access) until 2012 when I retired from full-time photojournalism. My specialty was courtroom photography and we had very good relationship with the local bar and judiciary. It is a pity that the Federal courts still do not allow audio-visual coverage. Seeing and hearing the actual testimony is better than relying on reporters' interpretations of it. As for the argument that broadcast media will only show sensational snippets, that is what they highlight in their paraphrasing. We never had a case overturned because of audio-visual coverage.

I would like it if someone would produce a court certified copy in PDF of course of the trial transcripts. I realize that in most cases, the transcripts ARE NOT available until weeks, if not months after the case has been concluded, unless, the case participants ORDER, as in request and pay for, the transcript during the case, and will use it to refer to testimony. However, it is clear to me, that the PUBLIC to whom Mr. Guiliani and Jay Sekolov refer to as a secondary court system, do not retain facts regarding the progress of this Federal Criminal Trial. In that regard, I think that the Times should take into consideration the fact that the actual words of Judge Ellis, the Prosecution (which ever attorney), and the many different counselors for the Defense, Mr. Manafort, and the witnesses, have not been referenced in their news article. The recent article on Judge Ellis is a case in point. Some of the readers who are clearly ignorant of court proceedings, jumped to an erroneous conclusion led by a naive journalist, that Judge Ellis is out of line. Excluding the attorneys who commented, who should not comment on past cases anonymously, for the sake of their clients, in a public newspaper, the vast majority who commented except yours truly, think that Judge Ellis has polluted the jury prior to the jury's rendering any verdict against or for Manafort. The New York Times has a duty to report without innuendo or bias about an ongoing trial.

Thanks for the view from the trenches. It looks to be just as "glamorous" as fighting the good fight usually does. Well done, and keep it up, please.

Since it is summertime, why don't you pay one of your colleagues' children to hold your phone and laptop for you outside the courthouse? No need to run across the street to the cafe.

PM is said to be quite the political operator. Politics exists to facilitate collecting taxes and passing laws. He can't really argue ignorance of any branch of law.

First, your description of handling breaking news reminded me of the scene in "Airplane" where the reporters charge into phone booths and knock them over. Second, I appreciate your commitment to the story, but I still think "the scoop" is overrated. If I read about the trial at all, it will be in the morning, with my breakfast. The last thing I want is to be interrupted with breaking news on someone not testifying at a trial whose outcome - lets face it - will have zero impact on the current political climate. So thank you for your work, but you don't have to go charging out of the courtroom, down the stairs, and across the street on my account.

Manifort has been glaring at Gates Who is clearly a man that he hates, Will those glares be effective Make Gates’ mem'ry defective Is something each glarer debates. I’ve been glaring at Donald a lot On TV, and results ain’t so hot, He continues his tweeting Rudy keeps on bleating I guess I’ll give it one more shot.

It all sounds so primitive. I have a surrealist vision of a 1940's film noire as the reporters take off like jack rabbits for the one available pay phone - which may or may not work - to read out the story from yellow pages scribbled down. I could imagine a relay team of runners waiting at the stairwells to accept the baton of notes, and security cameras catching the action for the judges next Christmas party. (In a perverse way, it almost sounds fun, in this age of insta-news; just add fast legs, legible handwriting and avoid being road kill as you scramble against competing new organizations to be the first to get the news to the phone - and beyond.)

This is a fascinating look at your process. I have so much respect for the hustle. Thanks for sharing with readers.

Thank you NYT for handling this case. It's important that Manafort's deeds be transparent.

What an amazing system -- a combination of humans listening, pen & paper, elevators, mad dashes, technology, entrepreneurs, and a judge. It's shocking that you can even get a story from source to print, much less continual updates. But much appreciated by me and, I expect, many other readers. There's a good reason NYT is so successful ($24MM from digital), and y'all earn every penny of it. I do have one question and hope you can answer it -- What are the logistics of Mr. Manafort's day? Where does he eat lunch, when and how does he meet with his attorneys, what is the transition from cell to suit to courtroom and back. does he sit next to one specific attorney, does he have a belt, tie, shoelaces, does he take his notes with him or leave them with attorneys, etc. Thank you so much for all you do.

Thanks for this bird's eye view of what it takes to cover this important trial.

Federal District Judges can often be arrogant and unreasonable in running their courtrooms. They are very strict, and they seem to enjoy being the center of attention. This behavior does not infect all District Court judges, some of whom are very professional. When, however, the ego trip takes over, it's directly related to the lifetime tenure. Sometimes, it is called "Federalitis," and Judge T.S. Ellis III seems to have a bad case. All of this is unimportant, other than the fact that these preening princes make life miserable for the attorneys, the journalists in the gallery and occasionally the witnesses. The jurors tend to be the audience such judges are trying to befriend and amuse, so they are immune to the judge's wrath. What is very important, however, is when a Federal District Court Judge in a jury trial makes remarks and body gestures which seem meant to belittle the validity of one particular side in the trial. Reports in the media have implied that Judge Ellis has committed that unforgiveable error is his disrespectful attitude towards the prosecutors. I have not seen that behavior reported in The New York Times, and I wonder why. Our Constitution protects defendants in criminal trials from double jeopardy. So, if a jury acquits a defendant because the jurors feel pressured by the judge or assume that is what the judge wants, the prosecution gets no second chance with another judge.

Where do you go for your shower at the end of the day? And does the stink ever really come off?

How I pity professional journalists in this day and age. You are heros. Poorly paid and frazzled but heros nevertheless. Hats off to you!

Why would the pay phones be unreliable? That doesn’t make any sense. Sounds fishy.

Thank you for this amusing and educational piece. Little did we know how hard our favorite reporters worked to get us the news. Why they even learned how to use pay phones....sometimes!

Fascinating and fun read. But you left out the location of water fountains and restrooms. And the pay phones, do they require coins, bills, or credit cards?