The Witch hunt Continues. More and more the public becomes aware as Trump’s popularity soars ever higher…
In the aftermath of the events of January 6, 2021, defense attorneys have coined the term “January 6 Jurisprudence” to characterize the legal treatment received by the over 1,200 defendants arrested in connection with the Capitol riot. This unique legal framework involves the controversial use of a corporate evidence-tampering statute, prolonged pretrial incarceration, and the classification of nonviolent offenses as federal crimes of terrorism. A distinctive feature is the insistence that defendants, predominantly Donald Trump supporters, face trial in Washington, D.C., a city heavily leaning towards Democrats, raising concerns about the impartiality of the legal proceedings.
DONALD J. TRUMP: “The Attorney General committed fraud, you just saw it right in there, SHE’S A FRAUD, This whole case is a fraud. It’s election interference.”
— Chuck Callesto (@ChuckCallesto) December 7, 2023
Despite federal judges consistently denying change of venue motions, court records suggest a pervasive bias against January 6 defendants. With over 130 convictions and no acquittals by jury trial, coupled with sentences ranging from seven days to 22 years, many defense lawyers argue that these outcomes contribute to defendants opting for plea deals rather than facing trial.
The upcoming trial of former President Donald Trump, scheduled for March 4, 2024, for election interference and other charges, intensifies the debate around seating an impartial jury in a city that overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
Vivek Ramaswamy calls out all three candidates for turning on Trump after using him for money and endorsements and then drops truth nukes 🔥
– J6 was an inside job
– The 2020 Election was stolen
– The Government lied about 9/11
– The “Great Replacement” is not a “Conspiracy… pic.twitter.com/AAWKSwn2oG— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 7, 2023
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team and Trump’s counsel are embroiled in disputes, with the primary contention revolving around the feasibility of selecting an unbiased jury in Washington, D.C. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan has set a jury selection schedule, mandating both parties to develop a questionnaire by January 9, 2024, to assess potential jurors’ qualifications and biases.
The stakes are high for both sides. Trump’s legal team must navigate limitations on striking jurors to ensure a fair trial, while the Department of Justice must convince the public that a case led by a Democratic administration and overseen by a Democratic-appointed judge can be heard impartially.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury from the state and district where the crime occurred. Traditionally, defendants can seek a change of venue due to sustained negative press coverage influencing the jury pool. Sources suggest that Trump’s defense may file a change of venue motion in the coming months, given the partisan atmosphere in Washington and the extensive media coverage of Trump’s legal challenges.
Body cam footage from an undercover Metro PD officer shows him joining J6 protesters, chanting with them, urging them to advance, and even helping them climb the Capitol building.
For the full story, see Episode 7: “Fed-Surrection, Part 3” of “The Rest of the Story” with… pic.twitter.com/GAkc6HnNqD
— Truth In Media (@Truth_InMedia) December 7, 2023
However, a review of January 6 cases indicates a historical reluctance of D.C. judges to grant change of venue motions. Even high-profile cases involving groups like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, labeled as “militia” groups in the Capitol protest, have been denied venue changes.
Despite acknowledging heightened media coverage, Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, rejected motions to move the Proud Boys’ trial, emphasizing that the national scope of pretrial publicity made a transfer unnecessary. Similar decisions followed for other cases, creating a challenging precedent for Trump’s defense team.
The handling of Russell Alford’s trial by Judge Chutkan further exemplifies the potential challenges Trump may face. Chutkan downplayed the partisanship of D.C. residents and dismissed concerns about potential juror bias, emphasizing an “expanded examination” to screen for prejudice.
Trump moves for “automatic” stay of all DC proceedings pending resolution of his appeal of Judge Chutkan’s denials of his immunity & double jeopardy claims. Says he will assume all current deadlines are stayed unless he hears otherwise. https://t.co/JY4JXu3xRf pic.twitter.com/g8MT2AKLIA
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) December 7, 2023
However, court transcripts and jury questionnaires in Alford’s case raised doubts about the effectiveness of the screening process, with a significant number of potential jurors expressing strong biases against January 6 protesters. Alford’s subsequent conviction and his assertion that jurors may have misrepresented their impartiality underscore the potential pitfalls in the jury selection process.
Contrastingly, a recent case involving Marilyn Mosby, a former Democratic elected official, saw the judge approving a change of venue based on studies indicating higher bias levels among prospective jurors in the original trial location. This highlights a potential inconsistency in the application of venue changes, with some cases granted the privilege while others are not.
Judge Chutkan issued a 48-page memo denying Trump’s motion to dismiss the January 6th prosecution based on his claims of presidential immunity, finding that Trump does not get a “get-out-of-jail-free” pass simply because he was the President. pic.twitter.com/BY5fzq5ay5
— Robert Gouveia Esq. (@RobGouveiaEsq) December 5, 2023
Surveys conducted in January 6 cases point to high levels of prejudice among D.C. residents, making it challenging to seat an impartial jury. A May 2022 survey revealed stark differences in attitudes between D.C. residents and those in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, suggesting a potential hurdle for Trump’s trial.
As Trump’s trial looms, the question of whether Chutkan will consent to a change of venue remains uncertain. While concerns about extensive negative coverage persist, historical precedents suggest that court-ordered venue changes are rare, even in high-profile trials.
The challenges posed by “January 6 Jurisprudence” raise crucial questions about the fairness of trials for defendants tied to the Capitol riot. As Trump’s trial approaches, the intricacies of jury selection and the potential impact of venue on the judicial process remain central to the ongoing legal discourse surrounding these cases.
James Kravitz, Freelance Writer for Whatfinger
Major Points Discussed:
- Coined term for the legal treatment of over 1,200 Capitol riot defendants, involving controversial legal tactics, extended pretrial detentions, and categorization of nonviolent offenses as federal terrorism crimes.
- Defendants, predominantly Trump supporters, face trial in Washington, D.C., despite concerns about the city’s Democratic majority, prompting debates on the impartiality of the legal proceedings.
- Scheduled for March 4, 2024, the trial intensifies the challenge of selecting an unbiased jury in a city that overwhelmingly supported Joe Biden in 2020.
- Special Counsel Jack Smith and Trump’s legal team spar over various issues, with a significant dispute focusing on the feasibility of seating an impartial jury in Washington, D.C.
- Despite the potential for biased jury pools, historical precedents indicate a reluctance by D.C. judges to grant change of venue motions, posing a significant hurdle for Trump’s defense.
