The Faust Trial Judge Just Put Her Plan to Kill the Cameras on the Record

I need you to pay attention to what happened on Day 6 of the Edrick Faust murder trial in Athens, Georgia. Not the testimony. Not the evidence. What the judge did.

Judge Lisa Lott cited three specific provisions of Georgia's Rule 22. That's the uniform superior court rule that governs whether cameras are allowed inside courtrooms. She cited Section G1D: the impact on the integrity and dignity of the court. Section G1E: the impact on the administration of the court. Section G1F: the impact on due process and the truth-finding function of the judicial proceeding.

Those three factors? They're the exact building blocks a Georgia judge needs to revoke pool camera access entirely.

She didn't do it yet. She put them on the record. And if you understand how courtroom procedure works, that distinction matters more than the action itself.

What Actually Happened

An independent journalist named Sylvia Tumisime, operating under Infamous Sylvia Media Services LLC, filed a Rule 22 request. She's covered the YSL trial, the Diddy federal case, and other high-profile proceedings. She wasn't asking to bring her own camera into the courtroom. She wanted access to the pool camera feed and the ability to text reporters outside the courtroom. Standard stuff.

The judge granted the request. Gave her pool access. Allowed texting like the other media outlets already in the courtroom. That part was fine.

Then, unprompted, Judge Lott made a broader statement. She declared that live stream commentary and blog participation during the trial are not allowed, citing those three Rule 22 factors. She raised concerns about social media's significant impact on the trial, the security of persons involved, and the integrity of the process.

Nobody asked her to make that statement. No party raised it. No motion was filed. She volunteered it, and she put it on the record with specific statutory citations attached.

Then She Turned to the Jury

After the Rule 22 hearing, Judge Lott brought the jury back and gave them a modified instruction. Not the standard "don't research the case, don't look anything up online" that every judge gives. She went further. She told the jurors that recordings on social media of certain times this court has held hearings outside of your presence have been captured and are available. She told them it would be improper to view those moments.

Think about what she just did.

A standard jury instruction works because it's general. Don't research the case. Don't look up the parties. Don't discuss it on social media. There's nothing specific to go hunting for. Jurors hear it, they understand, they move on.

Judge Lott told twelve people that secret, forbidden content about their case exists online. She told them it's on social media. She told them it involves hearings held outside their presence. For any curious human being, that's not a warning.

That's a treasure map. And she told them not to follow it.

The 4-Step Playbook

When I connected these two actions, a pattern emerged. I believe the judge is running a playbook, whether consciously or through institutional instinct, and it has four steps.

Step one: build the record. Cite the specific Rule 22 factors on the record so they exist as documented judicial concerns. Done. That happened on Day 6.

Step two: plant the seed. Give an overly specific jury instruction that practically dares a curious juror to go looking. If even one juror comes back and says they accidentally saw something online, the judge now has evidence that coverage is affecting the trial. Done. That also happened on Day 6.

Step three: wait for a violation. It doesn't have to come from my channel. It doesn't have to come from any specific outlet. Somebody identifies a juror in a comment section. Somebody screenshots something they shouldn't. Somebody in the gallery texts something that gets traced. Any violation by anyone becomes the justification.

Step four: pull the camera. Point to the Rule 22 factors already on the record. Point to the evidence of juror exposure. Argue that coverage is creating a substantial likelihood of harm to due process, the truth-finding function, and the administration of the court. That's the standard under Rule 22(G)(1) for denying or revoking recording authorization.

And here's the part that makes it almost impossible to fight: she can frame pulling the camera as protecting the defendant's right to a fair trial. Defense attorney Ahmad Cruz can't object without arguing against his own client's interests. The state won't object. So who challenges it? The media outlets would have to file an emergency motion, fighting uphill against a judge who already built a record of concerns.

Why This Matters Beyond This Courtroom

Edrick Faust is charged with the 2001 murder of Tara Baker, a 23-year-old University of Georgia law student. This case went cold for over two decades. It was reopened under the Coleman-Baker Act, a law named partly for the victim. The arrest came in 2024 after a DNA match.

This is a case the public fought to bring to trial. And now the judge presiding over it is building a framework to shut the public out of watching it.

Keep in mind what's already happened in this courtroom. Before the trial started, the defense filed a motion to remove Judge Lott from the case, arguing she showed bias against Faust. A second judge denied the recusal motion. On Day 1, the judge found defense attorney Ahmad Cruz in contempt of court and fined him $1,000 during opening statements. On Day 3, she denied two defense motions for mistrial, then told Cruz outside the jury's presence that "having a slight tantrum every time you get a ruling you don't agree with is really not appropriate."

This is a judge who has been accused of bias, held defense counsel in contempt on Day 1, called his legal arguments tantrums, and now knows that YouTube channels are broadcasting all of it with commentary that's getting thousands of views.

I'm not the judge here. But I am watching.

What Protects You

Georgia Rule 22 governs the use of recording devices inside courtrooms. It does not reach commentary on publicly available footage from outside the courthouse. A judge's authority over Rule 22 compliance ends at the courtroom door.

Your right to watch a public trial, comment on it, analyze it, and share that analysis is protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court held in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart in 1976 that prior restraints on reporting about criminal trials face an almost insurmountable constitutional barrier. A judge must show that no less restrictive alternative exists before silencing coverage, and Judge Lott has plenty of alternatives: jury admonishments, sequestration, contempt powers if a juror violates instructions.

What she doesn't have is the authority to use a courtroom recording rule as a back door to chill public commentary on proceedings that are already public.

My father was criminally convicted for helping people understand their rights from a coffee shop. A prosecutor opposed his reinstatement because she feared he would "disrupt the legal system" by training young lawyers who insisted on constitutional protections. The system has always been uncomfortable with people who watch too closely and ask too many questions.

That's exactly why we do it.

📺 WATCH THE FULL BREAKDOWN The Faust Trial Judge Just Put Her Plan to Kill the Cameras ON THE RECORD

I'm calling this now, publicly, before she does it. If Judge Lott revokes pool camera access in the Edrick Faust trial, you'll know why. The playbook was on the record the whole time.

Watch the system. Because it's watching to see if you'll look away.