The Kyle Rittenhouse trial has been streaming live for anyone to follow. The judge is no longer a fan of cameras in the courtroom, but legal experts say he's got it wrong.

• Court TV has been livestreaming the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.
• The judge in the case expressed reservations about his decision to allow the trial to be televised.

Americans have been able to tune in and follow along each day as the Kyle Rittenhouse case is tried in Wisconsin, but the judge presiding over the case appears to regret allowing cameras in the courtroom.

Kenosha County Judge Bruce Schroeder on Wednesday said that he's going to "think long and hard about live television at trial again," saying that "when I see what's being done, it's really quite frightening."

One of Schroeder's chief complaints was that he'd received flak for allowing Rittenhouse to take part in the process of whittling down the jury. When closing arguments wrapped, there were more jurors than needed for final deliberations, so Schroeder had Rittenhouse pick cards out of a box that corresponded to each juror, dismissing the extra jurors.

Social media users seized on this moment as an example of Schroeder giving Rittenhouse preferential treatment. But the judge said it's something he does to ensure that defendants are confident that the juror dismissal process has indeed been random.

Legal experts who spoke with Insider disagreed with Schroeder's anti-TV cameras sentiment, saying that televising trials offers transparency in contentious cases, as well as an opportunity to educate Americans on their criminal justice system. Schroeder did not immediately return Insider's request for comment.

Playing it up for the cameras

Television cameras are mostly banned in US federal courts. Federal judges have argued that "live broadcasts, in particular, distract trial participants, prejudice trial outcomes, and thus deprive defendants of fair trials," Ruth Ann Strickland, a former public policy professor, wrote in 2009.

"Some witnesses fidget nervously before cameras, possibly harming their credibility with jurors," Strickland wrote. "Opponents also argue that the broadcasting of trials leads lawyers to grandstand for the camera, diminishing courtroom decorum."

Cameras are allowed in some form in courtrooms in every state, however — and in Wisconsin, cameras have been allowed since 1979.

Paul E. Bucher, a defense attorney based in Waukesha County, Wisconsin, told Insider it's never bothered him that high-publicity cases in the state are televised. He said one camera is generally allowed into the courtroom, tucked away in the back where lawyers don't even realize it's there.

However, Bucher said there are concerns that anyone speaking at a televised trial might play it up for the cameras. He cited the example of the lead prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case, Thomas Binger, holding up Rittenhouse's AR-15 rifle during closing arguments. Bucher said he's done similar firearms demonstrations in court before, but never put his finger on the trigger.

While Bucher said he can understand Schroeder's concern about the cameras, he said the judge is "gonna have to come to the realization that that's the world we live in today, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court is never going to get in the way of that and bar cameras in the courtroom."

A tool for transparency and education

Daniel Maxwell, a distinguished criminal justice lecturer at the University of New Haven, told Insider that if members of the public are allowed to attend court in person, he doesn't see why cameras shouldn't be allowed in, too.

"We want transparency, we want people to know what's going on," Maxwell said. "What better place to learn how criminal justice works or doesn't work than seeing what goes on in a court room?"

When asked if the broadcast of the Rittenhouse trial had illuminated any ways in which the criminal justice system wasn't working, Manxwell said the cameras have shown that there are "some bumps along the road," citing the example of arguments that Schroeder and the prosecution have gotten into over technical matters.

Janine Geske, a Marquette University law professor who served for five years as a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, said she thinks Schroeder's newfound wariness of cameras in the courtroom has more to do with the criticisms he's been reading about himself in the media.

Criticism is "part of being a public figure," Geske said, but said she disagrees "that the answer is closing the media out."

"I sympathize that none of us, including me, would like to read or hear criticisms of how we do things, why we do things. I get that," she told Insider. "But that's not a reason not to show it on TV. We are publicly-elected officials and I think the public has a right to watch and comment on how we do it."

"I think for people who can't come and sit in the courtroom, to be able to see it on TV is an important part of our democracy," Geske said.

Geske said she hopes cameras will become even more common in the courtroom, saying she looks "forward to the day when the Supreme Court allows cameras in."

"I think we all benefit when we can see how justice is dispensed," Geske said.