Livestreaming Trials Incentivizes Lawyers to Perform for Cameras Rather Than Argue Law
Source: Brianna Lyman. "Livestreaming Trials Emboldens Lawyers To Act Out For Clicks." September 4, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that broadcasting trials live on the internet encourages lawyers to say shocking or attention-grabbing things to go viral, rather than focusing on making solid legal arguments. She points to a defense attorney in a high-profile child murder case who made a seemingly baseless accusation about a juror being biased, suggesting this was done for public spectacle rather than legal merit, and compares this to how TV cameras have turned congressional hearings into soundbite-driven theater.
Conclusion
Livestreaming courtroom trials should be reconsidered or opposed because it emboldens attorneys to engage in performative, outlandish behavior aimed at social media virality rather than focusing on legal advocacy before the judge and jury.
Premises
- In the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, defense attorney Kevin Reddington made a seemingly baseless suggestion that the holdout juror was biased against disabled people, despite no evidence supporting this claim.
- Reddington has a documented history of creating courtroom spectacles, including throwing ninja stars in a 1989 case and slamming papers/raising his voice during the Clancy trial.
- The livestreamed trial produced viral clips that split public opinion into opposing camps, creating an incentive structure where outlandish statements get amplified.
- Reddington was seen posing for photos with supporters outside the courthouse, suggesting he embraced celebrity-like status from the cameras.
- A parallel case with televised congressional hearings shows that cameras transform serious proceedings into 'performative slugfests' focused on soundbites rather than substance.
- Attorneys with livestreamed trials now have a third audience beyond judge/jury: social media and true-crime media producers, which changes their incentives and behavior.
Assumptions
- Attorneys' behavior is significantly shaped by audience incentives, and awareness of a large public audience will change courtroom conduct for the worse.
- The comparison between congressional hearings and courtroom trials is apt despite differing institutional purposes and rules.
- Reddington's ADA comment was performative/strategic rather than a genuine (if clumsy) legal argument or concern.
- Courtroom proceedings without cameras would not experience similar theatrical incentives (e.g., from other audiences like the press or public gallery).
- The negative behaviors described (spectacle, provocative comments) are primarily caused by livestreaming rather than being pre-existing tendencies of certain attorneys (like Reddington's 1989 incident, which predates livestreaming).