Federal appeals court rebuffs claims of D.C. jury bias in Jan. 6 case

Washington – A federal appeals court in Washington upheld the conviction of a former New York Police Department officer who was charged for your actions on January 6, 2021, after claiming he could not get an impartial jury in Washington, D.C.

The unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in a ruling Tuesday that defendant Thomas Webster was wrong when he argued that the jury pool in the District of Columbia was too Democratic, too linked to the federal government and too surrounded by news coverage of the Capitol attack to produce 12 impartial jurors who would decide his case.

Webster tried to have his case transferred out of the nation’s capital, raising concerns about political bias on the part of the jury, but a federal district court denied his request.

On a opinion authored by Judge Patricia Millett, the judges found that nothing in the record suggested that the jury had preconceived notions about Webster or knew who he was. They also ruled that he failed to demonstrate that the district’s grand jury is incapable of producing fair juries for people facing charges stemming from the Jan. 6 attack.

“Webster claims the district voted overwhelmingly for President Biden and has historically voted for Democratic candidates. Maybe,” Millett wrote. “But the political leanings of a large-scale population say nothing about an individual’s ability to serve impartially in the prosecution of an individual’s criminal conduct.”

Millett, appointed by former President Barack Obama, joined Justices Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both chosen by former President Donald Trump.

The justices rejected Webster’s reliance on a poll purporting to measure the feelings of the D.C. jury, which concluded that 400 registered voters in the city had a negative impression of those arrested in connection with the events of January 6.

“Webster’s focus on the Jan. 6 jury’s opinion and its perpetrators misses the point,” Millett wrote. “We hope jurors will view significant criminal events in their hometown with a disapproving eye, whether it be the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, a murder or a spate of armed robberies. a defendant’s case – says nothing about the juror’s ability to be impartial in deciding whether a particular individual committed a crime or not.”

The panel said the jury selection process for Webster’s case involved an “exact search” in which potential jurors were screened with 21 questions that included their ties to the U.S. Capitol and knowledge of the September 6 attack. January and feelings about Trump or his supporters that may affect his impartiality.

Potential jurors then faced additional questions asked in person and under oath.

In addition to defending Webster’s conviction, the panel confirmed his 10-year prison sentence.

Numerous January 6 defendants asked have their cases moved out of D.C. claiming they believe the jury is tainted with bias, though they have failed to persuade the federal judges who oversee their proceedings. Trump also said he would not get an impartial jury in the nation’s capital, where he faces four charges stemming from his alleged efforts to prevent the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election. The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Shortly after he was indicted in August 2023, Trump’s lawyer said “Face the Nation” that he would try to move the case out of Washington and suggested that West Virginia would be a better location. But they have not yet formally requested a new location and proceedings have been suspended since December, while Trump tries to have the entire charge dismissed on immunity grounds. This question is now before the Supreme Court.

Webster was among the crowd of Trump supporters who attended the rally in front of the White House on Jan. 6 and marched to the Capitol. Wearing body armor and carrying a Marine Corps flag, he confronted police officers outside the Capitol and became involved in an altercation with a member of the Metropolitan Police Department, according to court documents.

Webster was accused of attacking the officer, knocking him to the ground and shoving the gas mask into his face. The two men separated after a struggle lasting about 10 seconds, according to the documents.

A grand jury in Washington indicted Webster on five felony counts, including assaulting a police officer with a dangerous weapon and a misdemeanor. A jury then found him guilty on all counts and he received a 120-month sentence.