Since this summer I have been doing court ethnography in two terrorism trials in Germany for two to three days a week, one far-right-terrorism and one Islamist-terrorism trial, taking place in the same major German city. Beside of what is going in the trial, I have also been thinking of something else: the relative absence of the public in both trials.

Mitee states that “adequate public access to legal information enhances compliance with the tenets of democracy. […] Adequate public access to legal information is essential to the cause of justice and the rule of law” (Mitee 2017:1469). She also draws on Greenleaf’s & Peruginelli’s work, who consider the public’s opportunity of access to legal procedures and their presence to be one of the “necessary conditions for a working democracy”. (Greenleaf & Peruginelli 2012).

More concretely, in my opinion, the presence of the public – and most terrorism trials are open to the public – makes a difference in the courtroom and to the public knowledge on terrorism for two reasons: on the one hand, the public, whether it is interested individuals, the media, or researchers, can give a critical acclaim of terrorism at trial independently from the legal boundaries that lawyers act within. Representatives of the public can take an intersectional perspective and ask about the presumptions of legal actors participating in the trial regarding questions of penal nationalism or racism, gender roles or class. Besides, the presence of representatives of minority groups may raise awareness of those participating in the trial to consider minority perspectives. Against this background, the public has the discursive power to not leave it to lawyers alone to interpret the consequences of the violent action or plan on trial for various majority and minority groups and society as such. In a similar vein, the German NGO NSU-Watch that has critically documented the trials against members of the far-right terrorist network “National Socialist Underground” (2015-2019, since 2025) stresses the importance of showing respect to and solidarity with surviving victims and families (see NSU-Watch 2015, 2025).

On the other hand, the presence of public observers in a trial may also serve as a corrective for the behaviour of the different parties taking part in the trial and thus add to their mutual recognition and observance of basic forms of politeness and manner in the courtroom (see also Faria et al. 2020).

So, who represents the public in court? Based on my empirical observation, one can distinguish between at least six different ideal types of publics in these terrorism trials. First, there are people showing psychological or symbolic support to one of the parties of the trial. While in the “far-right terrorism” trial, sometimes individuals or small groups show up to support a defendant, in the “Islamist terrorism” trial, victims and witnesses regularly receive psychological support through the presence of representatives of ethnic minority communities. Second, there are people representing (pro-democratic) NGOs, who document the trial. In contrast to the far-right trial I observe, where someone rarely shows, the “Islamist-terrorism” trial is documented on a regular basis, and the reports are published. A third ideal type of the public are media representatives, who in both trials are present seldomly and not in a systematic manner. Fourth, there are individuals, and sometimes classes, who have a general interest in the trials and who are usually there just once. Fifth, there are individuals, who have a professional interest in the trial or the legal procedure. Finally, a sixth group of people is made of researchers, and they have been present in both trials, yet, except for myself – as far as I am aware – again only for single days.

So, why is it that the public, represented by one or more of these six ideal types outlined above, largely absent in the courtroom? I do not have an answer to this question, yet I have a few hypotheses:

Firstly, terrorism trials are only of public interest when there are victims of the majority population or one’s national in-group. In this regard, violent acts committed in Germany or Europe, or those luckily thwarted in planning phase, by defendants accused of “far-right terrorism” are far less likely to be recognised as acts of violence or even terrorism by the majority of the population if there aren’t any physically injured victims of the majority population. Yet, plans are likely to be turned into acts sooner or later; whether those will be successful terrorist attacks, is a different question. In contrast, violent acts negotiated in “Islamist terrorism” trials in public discourse on terrorism are often placed in the broader context of terrorist attacks in Europe and worldwide committed by the so-called Islamic State and other religious fanatic groups. Yet, that members of these groups have been on trial in “the West” for having committed violent acts and crimes against humanity that have left victims or deceased of minority populations mainly outside Germany or Europe is rather not in the public focus.

Secondly, racism has something to do with it as defendants positioned in a different cultural context in public discourse are rather perceived as a threat to the German population than defendants that are recognised as members of the national German or, the least, White in-group. Besides, public discourses on terrorism and crime overlap here, as both phenomena are rather associated with people perceived as having a migration history. Conversely, the symbolic or psychological consequences for minority groups of society that are directly or indirectly threatened by “far-right terrorism” and hence perceive that threat much stronger than the majority population are often overlooked from a majority perspective.

Thirdly, against this background, the overall German population shares a generally high level of trust in the country’s legal system and executive forces (see Bielejewski et al. 2022). In this context, people generally believe in aspects of righteousness and the professionality of representatives of the legal system, thus making critical observation unnecessary.

Last but not least, for the interested individual and NGOs that receive financial support from minority communities or work independently from public financing, there are practical barriers to accessing the courtroom. It might be a question of limited resources such as time and money to travel to where the trial takes place (see also Sallach 2025, this blog series). In this context, it may also be a question of limited information about ongoing or scheduled trials, as the information policy of German courts is not the most transparent (see also Schmidt-Kleinert 2025, this blog series). If not supported by a community and without the legal option of virtual attendance of trials in Germany, it may be quite impossible to access a trial on a regular basis.

To summarise, the (critical) public is not someone who is allowed to be present in the courtroom as a courtesy. On the contrary, the presence of various groups representing the public is an absolute necessity, since they fulfil important functions of a working democracy: showing solidarity and support to all victims and threatened groups in society, ensuring transparency of legal procedures, raising a critical voice in public discourses that is independent from governmental structures.

References

Bielejewski, B., Bender, R. & F. Asbrock. 2022. Vertrauen in Polizei, Justiz und öffentliche Verwaltung. Aktuelle Verständnisse von staatlichen Institution in der Bundesrepublik. Zentrum für kriminologische Forschung Sachsen e.V. https://www.zkfs.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/vertrauen.pdf

Faria et al. 2020. Embodied Exhibits: Toward a Feminist Geographic Courtroom Ethnography.

Greenleaf, Graham and Peruginelli, Ginevra, A Comprehensive Free Access Legal Information System for Europe (February 29, 2012). On Line Access to Legal Information, Firenze, Italy, May 2011, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2012-9, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2012956

Mitee. L.E. 2017. The Right of Public Access to Legal Information: A Proposal for its Universal Recognition as a Human Right. German Law Journal 18:6, 1429-96

Sallach, C. 2025. Judicial Temporalities, Infrastructures and Positionality in Courtroom Ethnography. Blog “Mapping Access”, September 2025. https://www.in-court.org/blog/20250901-judicial-temporalities-infrastructures-and-positionality-in-courtroom-ethnographic/

NSU-Watch. 2025. Kurze Anleitung zum Besuch des 2. NSU-Prozesses (13.11.2025) https://www.nsu-watch.info/2025/11/kurze-anleitung-zum-besuch-des-2-nsu-prozesses/

NSU-Watch. 2015. Teilnehmende Beobachtung gefragt (Teil II)! (26.03.2015) https://www.nsu-watch.info/2015/03/teilnehmende-beobachtung-gefragt-teil-ii/

Schmidt-Kleinert, A. 2025. Access to court files in Germany. Blog “Mapping Access”, July 2025. https://www.in-court.org/blog/20250701-access-to-court-files-in-germany/