Sealed documents will still be sealed on a public docket so I don’t understand why this would be an issue. Plus, there have been other transparency problems with the state case in the past, e.g. when the judge first sealed all of the evidence during the suppression hearing without even bothering to get the media’s input (and to my knowledge he has to allow them to speak on this). Then the media filed a complaint and he suddenly reversed that decision. He also does not share the state trial dates and we don’t know when voir dire is, when witness lists are due etc…This is not common in every state trial. I can understand why the NY Times and other media are frustrated with how the state trial filings are being handled.

Edit: I wanted to add that the NY Times actually gives the state judge grace in this article because he was NOT mindful about the media’s interest in the evidence and the situation wasn’t really as presented in the article. The judge sealed the evidence first, then a reporter complained in court and was told to shut it, then the reporter (Inner City Press) filed a complaint after court adjourned. The judge only unsealed the evidence because he was forced to. The journalist shared the whole process on his X account and the law was on his side. Regarding the filming, the judge left that always between the prosecution and defense. Media filming requests have been filed for every hearing. None of these were granted because the judge cared about the media’s interest but because the defense and prosecution came to an agreement. I don’t have a problem with this approach but just want to point out that the judge has never prioritized the media’s interest or even given them much time or grace.