Millions of people watched Karen Read’s trials. Lindsay Clancy’s trial was streamed online gavel to gavel. Matthew Farwell’s trial for the death of Sandra Birchmore, which reaches opening statements as early as Friday, October 9, 2026, will not be shown anywhere. No livestream, no courtroom video, not even a still photograph.
It is not the judge’s choice and it is not about this case. It is a rule that has barred cameras from every federal criminal trial in the country since 1946. Here is the rule, why Massachusetts state courts are the opposite, and how you can actually follow the trial.
The rule: Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53
Rule 53 reads in full: “Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.”
“Must not.” There is no balancing test and no exception for high-profile cases. According to the federal judiciary’s own history of the policy, electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts “has been expressly prohibited” under Rule 53 “since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946.”
The federal judiciary has experimented with cameras, but only on the civil side. The Judicial Conference ran a pilot program for civil cases in selected courts starting in 1990, a later pilot in several districts, and an audio streaming pilot for civil and bankruptcy matters from 2020 to 2023. In September 2023 it changed its policy to let judges allow live audio of civil and bankruptcy proceedings where no witness is testifying. None of that touches criminal trials. As the Worcester Telegram noted Tuesday, that is why the Farwell trial will not be livestreamed or photographed.
The Farwell case is in federal court because he is charged under federal law, with killing a witness to prevent her from reporting federal crimes, not with murder under state law. We explained that choice here.
Why Read and Clancy were on TV: SJC Rule 1:19
Massachusetts state courts start from the opposite presumption. Under Supreme Judicial Court Rule 1:19, “A judge shall permit photographing or electronic recording or transmitting of courtroom proceedings open to the public by the news media for news gathering purposes and dissemination of information to the public, subject to the limitations of this rule.”
The limits are specific. A judge may restrict coverage if it “will create a substantial likelihood of harm to any person or other serious harmful consequence.” The rule bars recording of juror voir dire and “frontal or close-up photography of jurors and prospective jurors,” and lets the judge impose other limits needed to protect a fair trial or the safety of a party, witness or juror. Within those limits, the news media get to film. That is why viewers saw Read’s trials in Norfolk Superior Court and Clancy’s in Plymouth Superior Court, and why we could publish a full transcript of Clancy’s September 29 hearing from broadcast video.
Same city, same kind of charge, opposite rules. A killing prosecuted by a district attorney in Superior Court is presumptively on camera. A killing prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in federal court never is. The Boston Marathon bombing trial, in the same courthouse, was not televised for the same reason.
How to follow the Farwell trial anyway
- Reporters in the room. NBC10, WCVB, Boston 25, MassLive, The Enterprise and others have said they will report from inside the courtroom. NBC10 noted it will have crews inside even though cameras are barred.
- Sit in. Federal trials are open to the public. The trial is in Courtroom 10 at the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse in the Seaport, generally 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, according to The Enterprise. Seating is limited, and electronic devices are restricted in federal courthouses.
- Court sketches. Because photography is barred, courtroom artists are how federal trials get pictures.
- The docket. Filings, exhibits admitted into the record, and orders are posted on the federal PACER system, and many appear free on CourtListener’s RECAP archive, though often with a delay.
- Transcripts. Official transcripts can be ordered from the court reporter, but federal rules generally restrict remote public access to transcripts for a period after they are filed.
- Our tracker. We are updating the Farwell trial tracker as testimony comes in.
Will the rule ever change?
Not soon. Amending Rule 53 would require action through the federal rulemaking process, which runs through the Judicial Conference and the Supreme Court and gives Congress time to act. The Judicial Conference has repeatedly declined to expand cameras into criminal trials, and its most recent change, in 2023, was limited to audio of civil and bankruptcy hearings with no witnesses testifying. Proposals in Congress to allow cameras in federal courts have been introduced over the years without becoming law.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Matthew Farwell trial being livestreamed?
No. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 prohibits photographing or broadcasting federal criminal trials. There is no livestream, video or still photography.
Why was the Lindsay Clancy trial on TV but not Farwell’s?
Clancy was tried in Massachusetts Superior Court, where SJC Rule 1:19 requires judges to permit news media recording, subject to limits. Farwell is being tried in federal court, where Rule 53 bans it.
Can I watch the Farwell trial in person?
Yes. Federal trials are open to the public. It is in Courtroom 10 at the Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston. Seating is limited.
When are opening statements in the Farwell trial?
Judge Denise Casper scheduled them for as early as Friday, October 9, 2026, if a jury is seated by Thursday.
Sources: Fed. R. Crim. P. 53 read at law.cornell.edu; history of the federal cameras policy read at uscourts.gov; SJC Rule 1:19 read at mass.gov; Worcester Telegram, October 6, 2026; The Enterprise and NBC10 Boston, October 2026. Matthew Farwell is presumed innocent. General information about the law, not legal advice.