This would fly in the face of having a public trial, where court reporters would be present. What are they going to do? Search the reporters for notes, or forbid recordings? (Odd, if the trial would be on camera.) Whether or not there may be "precedent," I think this stands out as suppression of the defense. Since when has evidence been made secret to the disadvantage of the defense? Since when has the identity of witnesses been secret?---inasmuch as the defendant has the right to challenge witnesses in trial.
I think they should refuse to do it on the basis of Constitutional protection of the rights of the accused and the right of free speech---and let them all be sent to prison to stop the trial. That would get public notice. "Your honor, we decline to follow this request. It violates our client's rights under the Constitution. What are you going to do? Throw us all in jail?"
This would fly in the face of having a public trial, where court reporters would be present. What are they going to do? Search the reporters for notes, or forbid recordings? (Odd, if the trial would be on camera.) Whether or not there may be "precedent," I think this stands out as suppression of the defense. Since when has evidence been made secret to the disadvantage of the defense? Since when has the identity of witnesses been secret?---inasmuch as the defendant has the right to challenge witnesses in trial.
I think they should refuse to do it on the basis of Constitutional protection of the rights of the accused and the right of free speech---and let them all be sent to prison to stop the trial. That would get public notice. "Your honor, we decline to follow this request. It violates our client's rights under the Constitution. What are you going to do? Throw us all in jail?"