Random Public Trial Thoughts As Closing Arguments Begin In Arochi Trial

There are lots of things which have "always been done" which are wrong. This ruling in essence closes a public courtroom and the appellate courts don't like closing courtrooms. (The video feed makes it possibly constitutional if a room has been designated to watch it.)

I've got trouble with this. Think about it.  The judge, who has no say on guilt or innocence, is supposed to be impartial in this trial. He can't even comment on how he feels about the evidence or which side he thinks should "win".  So why does the victim's family get preferential treatment by the judge? This is the The State of Texas vs. Arochi not Arochi's Alleged Victim and Family vs. Arochi.  Does the judge's treatment of the victim's family and law enforcement send an implicit message that he is sympathetic to their position when that position is that Arochi is guilty? Why isn't this tax payer funded public forum subject to the "first come first serve" rule?  Those who are now denied entry to the courtroom because of lack of space have just as much of a right to see the public trial as those who were witnesses or have a vested interest in the result.