Thread by @ZoeTillman

Hello from the DC federal courthouse, where jury selection is set to continue for the first Jan. 6 trial. I'll be in the courtroom on pool duty this a.m., which means no devices 👋 Will they seat a jury and get to openings? Stay tuned.

On Day 1: buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…

Good afternoon, back online after a morning on pool duty. Pretty uneventful (setting aside substance of voir dire, which was v. interesting!), but would note the audio stream apparently wasn't working for the last part, underscoring why having a person in the courtroom matters!

Where things stand:
- they ended the morning with 32 prospective jurors qualified for the next round, when the lawyers can exercise strikes. The judge has said she'd like to get to at least 38, maybe one add'l

Judge Dabney Friedrich just said she'd still like to get to openings this afternoon, though given the pace of jury questioning so far, not 100% they'll get there

One of the most interesting exchanges this morning involved a man who talking about participating in BLM protests and was at Lafayette Square when police cleared the area before a Trump photo-op, and explained he saw/experienced abuses by police against peaceful protesters

Asked if he had a negative view of police as a result of that, the man said not generally, but that there were systemic problems w/ how they operated. He also said that he was pro how police acted on Jan. 6, comparing it to his negative experiece at Lafayette Square

Reffitt's lawyer asked the man if he'd be able to set aside his beliefs to impartially weigh evidence re: a defendant whose views the man might find offensive (i.e. pro-BLM v. anti-BLM). The man said yes, he understood the focus in court was actions, not beliefs

Not going to go back and post updates on all the people we heard from this morning, I'm sure there was lots of good live-tweeting!

We're still waiting for them to start bringing jurors in

In the meantime, Friedrich is discussing demonstratives the govt intends to use in its opening. Yesterday she expressed concern about use of expletives, AUSA asked for clarification - if he should put asterisks in powerpoint slides, and if he'd be okay to say quotes out loud...

Friedrich says that if it's evidence re: something Reffitt said, it's coming in at trial, she just doesn't want to "inflame" the jury, so sounds like it'll be a mix of asterisks on display and the prosecutors saying the full thing

They're now having a very in the weeds discussion of where jurors should sit in the courtroom. Friedrich has noted that they're definitely not going to get to the first witness, esp. taking into account closures for the SOTU (still unclear if they'll even get to openings)

Okay they've started calling in jurors now for questioning. First up is a man who says he's "reasonably well informed" about Jan. 6, says he watched the documentary on HBO, Friedrich says she's not familiar with that and asks him to describe what he saw

The man becomes our latest prospective juror to name drop the "QAnon shaman" as someone who he remembers, doesn't recognize Reffitt or know about his case

Man says he has fairly strong opinions about Jan. 6, believes it was "exceedingly negative" for democracy, but at the same time, he doesn't know anything about Reffitt, and strongly believes the country survives on the idea that ppl are innocent until proven guilty

#49 (that's the number of people they've questioned so far) is an older woman who says she was overseas when Jan. 6 happened and it was a "sad event" to watch abroad, asked by the judge if she could put feelings aside and be a neutral juror, the woman says yes

#50 is excused after sharing his reasons why jury service would be a hardship on the private line with the judge and the lawyers

#51, man, speaks generally about having opinions about Jan. 6, when asked to elaborate, says he thinks it was "probably the greatest affront to democracy," but also says he doesn't have an opinion about any person's specific guilt besides Trump and Giuliani

The man noted a connection to the law, he says his dad was a public defender. Judge asks if they discussed the law, he says yes, she asks if he could put aside anything he thinks he knows, he smiles and says yes, he's "acutely aware" he's not a lawyer (Arabic linguist for DoD)

#52, man, works for the Architect of the Capitol — the second AoC employee today, remarkably. He says he wasn't there on Jan. 6, but was there soon after, works very closely w/ US Capitol Police, knows an officer assaulted that day

Man specifies that he works at the Library of Congress next door: "My job is to maintain those buildings and to see them damaged in that way was pretty hard"

His work is in historic preservation, and says once the material is damaged, it's gone

The man said it would be difficult to set aside feelings re: personal relationships with Capitol Police officers — he talks about knowing officers who suffered physical and emotional trauma; questioned by the AUSA, he says he thinks he could do it though

Questioned by Reffitt's lawyer William Welch, man specifies that he personally knew one USCP officer who was injured. Welch asks if hearing USCP officers testify would remind the man of his friend, he says yes, acknowledges it'd be difficult to ignore that

Welch doesn't ask to strike the Architect of the Capitol employee from the pool, the judge sounds a bit surprised, but moves on

#53, man, knows maybe the most about Reffitt's case of anyone questioned so far, says he recently saw news about him, that he had a weapon, that he's from Texas, that he had "discussed" (says he's not sure if "threatened" is the right word) w/ family members not turning him in

Questioned by the judge, the man says it'd be hard to put aside what he knows, but he thinks he could. Also notes that he watches a lot of news (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) but says he could follow instruction to not watch outside info about Jan. 6

Man says he had a hunch this trial would be about Jan. 6, since he noticed the camera tripods set up around the building and connected the dots with news he'd seen a little earlier noting that a trial would be starting soon

Welch is moving to strike, first noting the man has travel plans next week to see aging parents, then getting into substance of how much he knows already about Reffitt's case and fact that he's even seen a pic likely picked up by the media from govt court filings

Govt opposes striking, saying he has only general knowledge of Reffitt's case. Friedrich agrees with defense to strike, saying the man seemed to know more than just the basics of the charges, had seen at least one photo, decision is out of an abundance of caution

After a brief discussion with the lawyers on the private phone line, the judge announces that the Architect of the Capitol employee will, in fact, be struck from the pool (why that discussion was off the record was not articulated)

They're taking a break right now. Friedrich's confidence in getting to openings is waning, she's now back to saying that she hopes to finish jury selection today

Another prospective juror who stood out this a.m. was a man who seemed visibly angry, said he thought "guilty" once he learned the trial was re: Jan. 6, had trouble following judge's Qs once he learned he was sitting in the same room as the deft b/c "really upset" (he was struck)

Okay they're back from the break with the next prospective juror

#54, man, pretty uneventful, said he was watching live on Jan. 6 and followed immediate aftermath, recalled images being "startling," but hasn't kept up with much of the news

#55, woman, says the husband of a good friend is a police officer who was injured on Jan. 6 at the Capitol, she believes he was outside the building but not sure where exactly, no other details, says that wouldn't make her lean more towards govt/police

#56, woman, has experience getting arrested at protests in DC, incl. recent demonstrations related to climate change (Fire Drill Fridays), but hasn't followed much news about Jan. 6, doesn't have strong opinions on it, is more focused on issues like free press, peace, anti-war

AUSA is parsing the woman's comments about believing in the importance of protest to raise awareness, asking if she'd be willing to convict someone if the govt met its burden. She says she believes that if someone breaks the law, they should face the consequences, herself incl.

Govt is moving to strike, saying woman said she thought it was okay to break the law for causes you believe in, worried about that esp. if defense argues Reffitt was doing just that. Friedrich notes the woman also said she believed in accepting consequences for breaking the law

Welch opposes striking the woman, highlighting her comments about needing to accept consequences. Friedrich is reviewing the transcript

Okay, Friedrich is not going to strike this woman. They've hit 38 qualified people, they're moving to the ceremonial courtroom now to exercise strikes and finalize the jury

The bad news is, they're back in the ceremonial courtroom, there's only an audio hookup streaming into the overflow courtroom where media can sit (there is a pool reporter in the actual courtroom), and it's hard to hear voices so far

Nearly an hour after moving to the ceremonial courtroom, it's still not clear what's happening at this point. The judge has been in non-public discussions with the lawyers for most of the past ~45 minutes

Alas, this is a hard stop for me, so follow @joshgerstein @TomDreisbach @kpolantz @JordanOnRecord @cryanbarber or any of the other excellent journos who are sticking it out here this evening for updates

@joshgerstein @TomDreisbach @kpolantz @JordanOnRecord @cryanbarber Dispatch from the first Jan. 6 trial, Day 2: We have a jury
buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…