Well, typically, the Stalinist show trials are called such because a trotskyist group held trials for the individuals in absecentia afterwards that supposedly absolved them of their crimes, by throwing out all of their confessional testimony as being made under duress (which tbf it probably was). Literally holding show trials.

That said, what the trotskyist group failed to do, of course, is place it in context to the kinds of trials that were taking place in the U.S. where they were based out of, was understand that what the USSR did was exactly the same level of evidence and scrutiny that was done in basically every other country for treason. The more I read about these old Trotskyist groups, the more I realize that they held the USSR to an impossible standard, while actively undermining it’s foreign policy in the countries they lived in, while not holding those countries to the same standards as the USSR in terms of them offering direct assistance. Basically, they were willing to do critical support for capitalist countries, but not for countries that called themselves communist. The worst kind of schemers and backbiters.

I’m actually against that kind of show trial. You need a reasonable code for what constitutes admissible evidence, and to have admissible evidence to show. And I am a strong proponent of the fundamental concept of innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof should always be on the accuser. The state should not be allowed to perform a legal proceeding which goes “here is the crime committed, here is the state response” without providing evidence that the accused did indeed commit the crime.

If you have evidence, to the normative standard of evidence used in the country’s courts, by all means, make a huge public spectacle of the trial. I’m all for that. Just be prepared for an independent judiciary to possibly find the prosecution in the wrong in front of the entire country if you choose to make public spectacles of important trials.