Thread by @ZoeTillman

The first Jan. 6 trial is set for Feb. 28 — Guy Reffitt of Texas is accused of bringing a gun to the Capitol, and making it up steps outside before police turned him back.

Late last night, the govt filed more details about the case it'll put to the jury: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2119…

Before diving in to last night's doc, a refresher on Reffitt's case and how his trial has taken shape: buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…

Prosecutors say they expect to call 13 witnesses:
- Four US Capitol Police witnesses, three of whom will testify they interacted w/ Reffitt. The govt has alleged that initial rounds of pepperballs, projectiles, and chemical spray didn't deter him from trying to get to the Capitol

- Four FBI witnesses, who will discuss physical/electronic evidence collected in the investigation, as well as one the judge agreed to approve as a lay witness to talk about a holster found in Reffitt's bedroom + images of what govt alleges is a holster on his hip at the Capitol

- One Secret Service witness, who will testify about how they handled security for then-VP Pence and his family. A key element of one of the charges against Reffitt is the presence of Secret Service protectees in restricted building/grounds he's accused of illegally entering

- One former Senate staffer who was there on Jan. 6 and will testify about what was happening that day re: certifying the Electoral College vote during the special joint session

- Reffitt's son, who will testify about what he knew about Reffitt's activities in DC, recordings he made post-Jan. 6, and threats he says Reffitt made
- Reffitt's daughter, who will testify about intimidating statements
- member of Texas Three Percenters granted immunity

The filing lists the government's exhibits, featuring physical items (incl. the handgun and the rifle the govt contends Reffitt traveled to DC with, they allege he had the handgun with him at the Capitol), photos, videos, and messages/info pulled from electronic devices

The filing also includes four stipulations, which means the govt and Reffitt agreed on certain facts to present to the jury, incl. info about the Capitol complex, authenticity of surveillance videos, basic timeline of Congress' activities/evacuation on Jan. 6, and DC curfew

The last page is a sample of the verdict form. Here's the indictment for a full description of the five charges he's going to trial on: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2106…

Reffitt is one of a small but notable group of defendants who have tried — unsuccessfully, so far — to challenge the application of the felony "obstructing an official proceeding" to Jan. 6. More on that: buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…

Next pretrial conference is set for Feb. 18

Reffitt's case features certain elements that are common across the Jan. 6 prosecutions, making his trial an important first test for the govt — obstructing an official proceeding, civil disorder, entering/remaining in a restricted building/grounds are in hundreds of cases

*But* Reffitt's case is unusual in some respects — there are a handful of cases involving firearms, although many more involving weapons allegations generally; there's no allegation he went inside; relatively few defs face a charge of obstructing the investigation via threats

Addendum, for those wondering how Safeway fits into all this — as @ryanjreilly alludes to here, in order to prove the civil disorder charge, the govt has to prove Reffitt interfered w/ police during a civil disorder that "adversely affected commerce"

https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1491065218398822406

@ryanjreilly Not included in the elements of the offense is whether the events of Jan. 6 affected the extent to which Safeways in DC were social, secret, sexy, senior, or soviet

Update: Jan. 6 defendant Guy Reffitt, set for trial this month, objects to the govt's intent to present a former Senate counsel to "generally explain the process and constitutional and legal bases for Congress’s certification of the Electoral College vote" s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2120…

Reffitt's lawyer argues the govt is trying to introduce expert testimony under the guise of lay testimony (expert witnesses have to go through a specific qualification process), and that, regardless, an expert witness can't opine on "ultimate issues of law"