I doubt MT wants to miss her own hearing(s) so she can take an off-camera stroll to the nearby cafe or take a nap!
Every State and Federal court has adopted its own rules during COVID19 applicable to virtual court hearings.
I've listened to Federal trials where the defendant is incarcerated and his court appearance was not by web or fixed camera but audio-only.
Some courts even disclaim that free internet wifi does not offer the stability and strength required to participate in a zoom hearing.
I'm currently listening to a case in the US District Court of Northern CA where both participants and non-participants must acknowledge the strict rules of court decorum prior to access including the following:
IMPORTANT: HEARING RECORDING PROHIBITED
Any recording of a court proceeding held by video or teleconference, including “screen-shots” or other audio or visual copying of a hearing, is prohibited. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court-issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the court.
See Notice Regarding Press and Public Access to Court Hearings and List of Judges’ Zoom Webinar Links
As for MT, the court has the means to prove the defendant is where she says via her GPS monitor. And what would be the purpose for her stay on camera after she's been acknowledged present by the court?
For public satisfaction? For media? If Judge Blawie and the DA are happy, that's good enough for me.
It also appears from the screenshots that CT allows the hearing recorded. It could very well be that JLS requested MT allowed to go off camera after rollcall, and continue by audio-only.
We already know that JLS's entire defense of his client thus far has been limited to focusing on MT's civil rights, and not her innocence. IMO, MT off-camera just sounds like another topic where JLS claimed MT's rights being violated if she's forced to remain on camera where media can focus their camera on her image! (I think NP made a similar claim about FD receiving too much media coverage inside the courtroom).
If MT not being on camera is a malfunction of the court or for reasons beyond MT's control, it would be up to JLS to stop the hearing until the matter corrected.
I've said it before, any claim hereafter that MT is receiving prejudicial treatment whereby her guilt or innocence decided, it's on JLS. I especially liked the DA suggesting that JLS needs to do "the lawyering."
MOO
ETA - link
Preparing to Participate in a Zoom Video Conference | United States District Court, Northern District of California