Thread by @ZoeTillman

Hello from the DC federal courthouse (IRL!) where jury selection begins this morning in the first Jan. 6 trial. Guy Reffitt's case is set to have ripple effects on hundreds of pending prosecutions, but in some ways it's also an outlier:
buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…

There won't be a public dial-in line for this and limited seats for press/the public, still figuring out if there'll be an option to observe/listen and provide live updates, or if it'll be sporadic

The courthouse is pretty quiet at the moment. Jury selection will take place today in the ceremonial courtroom, which is the largest one, chairs are set up in the hallway with lots of distance for people to wait

Reffitt's trial day 1 begins w/ ruling from Judge Dabney Friedrich on a media coalition motion for access, since in-person seating is restricted. Friedrich says yes to a courtroom pool seat for openings and maybe closings, no public line, video streamed internally for coverage

We have a pool seat in the courtroom now for voir dire and audio is being streamed but we may not be able to use electronic devices from the overflow courtroom for the first part of voir dire. Later in the day we should be back in the media room

Okay, the first part of voir dire in Reffitt's trial is over — the judge asked 27 questions, all of them yes/no, aimed at understanding any connections to 1/6, the Capitol, witnesses, what people possibly already know about the attack and the defendant Guy Reffitt individually

Worth noting that during the judge's admonitions to prospective jurors to avoid news/info about this case, she noted that they should consider if they need to adjust their push notification settings (see: buzzfeednews.com/article/davidm…)

One of the final questions was whether anyone got a pamphlet that was being distributed outside the courthouse, no other details about that (I got here pretty early and didn't see anyone around)

The good news is, the rest of voir dire (individualy questioning of prospective jurors) should be taking place in a different courtroom that's being streamed in the media room, which means we're allowed to use electronic devices again

This morning's pooler inside the courtroom is the great @hsu_spencer. Per the first report, Reffitt (who has been in pretrial detention post-arrest) is dressed in a tan sport coat, checkered dress shirt, jeans, dark framed eye glasses. His wife is in the courtroom.

Friedrich is back on the bench — she explains this case is unusual in that most people will know something about Jan. 6. "Critical" question for her in deciding who to strike: whether someone has "such fixed opinions" about Jan. 6 and/or participants that they can't be impartial

First prospective juror is up, 0587. He says he's tried to get info about Jan. 6 from a variety of sources (CNN, Fox News), trying to understand "different sides." Says he hasn't read about Reffitt, only person he can think of specifically is the "QAnon shaman"

0587 cont'd: He says another name he remembers is Ashli Babbitt. He says he hasn't formed an opinion about the guilt of anyone charged with participating in Jan. 6

#2: 1386, a woman, says she's consumed info regularly about Jan. 6 via TV, newspaper, Apple News, though not specifically looking for it, reads as it comes up. Doesn't recognize Reffitt's name, knows about Proud Boys, QAnon, people involved in events before like Giuliani

1386 cont'd: "I feel strongly about the event itself, I don't know if I've formed specific opinions about any specific individuals," says she believes it was "pretty atrocious" and "frightening," but also says she's an atty and understands the obligation to put that aside

1386 says she used to practice transactional/real estate law for a big firm, husband is also a lawyer. Friedrich probes whether she could put aside beliefs about Jan. 6, she says if she'd recognized def might be hard to overcome, but believes she can look at this fresh

1386 says she feels obligated to disclose that when she practiced law, firm was involved in matters re: Trump-related bankruptcies and for a time she lived in a Trump bldg. Says that doesn't affect her, has "strong feelings" about him but can look at this case separate from that

#3: 0328, a woman, says she feels "pretty invested" in what happened and has "strong feelings," she subscribes to podcasts (names Rachel Maddow, Pod Save America), consumes info regularly but doesn't recognize Reffitt, "I have some strong thoughts that would be hard to change"

Judge asks if 0328 would struggle to follow the instruction that Reffitt is innocent until proven guilty, she replies affirmatively, "I think so"

After she leaves, Reffitt lawyer moves to strike, Friedrich replies yep, 0328 is out

#4: 1419, woman, says service would be hardship b/c this week is Ash Wednesday and she's newly converted and in the choir, and the only alto; also has a trip planned soon to see family in New Orleans.

Says Reffitt's name seems familiar, reads news "voraciously," cites WaPo

1419 says she has "very strong" political beliefs and views about the events of the day, but also says she's an attorney, believes in the "system," and believes very strongly that she can be impartial

1419 is retired, used to be in private practice; husband is an attorney, just took senior status, used to be a member of local ACLU board (no sign. criminal law background for either)

Friedrich goes back to her beliefs, asks if she could follow court instructions, she says yes

Reffitt's lawyer asks 1419 to clarify any connection to events of Jan. 6, she says she just meant she was watching what happened on TV and actively focused since then. No motion to strike after she leaves

#5: 1541, man, lives on Capitol Hill, says he's read a lot about Jan. 6, recognized Reffitt's name, as he was coming into court this morning saw something about jury selection getting underway, has strong opinions about Jan. 6 and would find it difficult to be impartial

1541 says he knows Reffitt's case involves a firearm (the first person to recite something specific). AUSA Berkower asks about his confidence to follow judge's instruction to set aside beliefs, 1541 says he thinks he could

After 1541 leaves, Reffitt's lawyer moves to strike, govt opposes, citing his answer that he could follow judge's instruction. Friedrich notes he said he'd come in predisposed to the govt, believes he'd try hard to set aside strong opinions but it'd be difficult, but will strike

#6: 31 (I think), woman, noted law enforcement connex, explains her daughter works for DHS but doesn't share a lot about her job though. Judge asks if she'd be inclined to side with the govt b/c of that, she says yes, and also because of what happened

31: I just think the acts were just wrong against the govt, it was dangerous for everyone who lives in the city, it was horrifying when I watched it.

Judge asks if she could put aside views, she initially says no, when pressed, says she could follow judge's orders, with a "but"

AUSA asks 31 to talk more about whether she could set aside beliefs and judge case based on the evidence, she says yes, she's confident she could, though "uncomfortable" watching it that day. She says she's not leaning towards govt in this case, doesn't know defendant

Reffitt's lawyer/Friedrich ask her to clarify earlier comment about leaning towards govt - she says, my uncomfortableness is my daughter works for DHS, it worries me sometimes, not about judging specific people w/out evidence

No motion to strike

#7: 1120, man, says he's heard about Jan. 6 on the news, but amount of info is minimal, "I'm not a real news guy," says he's been out of the country a lot though he was in DC during Jan. 6.

Doesn't know about Reffitt, only one he recalls is "the guy with the horns"

#8, man, former boss is a member of Congress (Dem. Rep. Brad Schneider) and has other relationships w/ people on the Hill, said he talked to him about the experience of huddling with Capitol security on Jan. 6, but says he could come in and judge based on the evidence

Judge asks even if it's difficult, could he set aside strong views about Jan. 6 and follow court instructions? He says yes. Any hestitation? No. No motion to strike

#9, woman, followed the news of Jan. 6 right around the time, not so much after, cited seeing personal stories of Capitol police officers, general reference to Ashli Babbitt — says, I certainly have feelings about what happened, I don't think it would affect my impartiality

#10, woman, says she's followed news since Jan. 6, seeks out podcasts, cites Julie Kelly and another name I couldn't make out. She says she doesn't recognized Reffitt. Hasn't formed an opinion about guilt/innocence b/c doesn't have all the information

She says she came to court thinking it was going to be a "fender bender" case and got very upset when the judge explained what it was b/c she's read "both sides" but is leaning towards one side, says she wouldn't have difficulty considering Reffitt innocent until proven guilty

Questioned by AUSA, she says her info consumption has been "somewhat one-sided," she has an opinions about the guilt v. innocence of people involved in Jan. 6, can't measure how strongly she holds them, wouldn't be hard to set them aside

AUSA asks to "approach" to speak with the judge out of earshot of the public (they're not literally going up to the bench, but using phones at the tables)

AUSA back up to ask a few more questions, asks if she's heard info about this case in podcasts she listens to (no), if she follows Julie Kelly on Twitter (no), if she's familiar with anything Kelly has posted online about this case (no)

#11, woman, another attorney, she interned for Judge Reggie Walton in DC a long time ago, Friedrich notes they're in his former courtroom (truly the smallest world). She says she's read news about Jan. 6, believed storming of Capitol was "inappropriate" but could set aside views

She's a lawyer for Amazon, notes that she's going through vetting for a DOJ Civil Division job where she has a tentative offer, but asked by the judge about it, says she doesn't think she's inclined to favor the govt going in

#12, man, says he watched Jan. 6 on TV, has regularly read news about it, doesn't recognize Reffitt. Says he believes he could set aside opinions, but judge says she senses hesitation, he says it would be hard for him to be totally neutral + ignore what he's seen

He says it felt like an attack on his home in a sense, has family who live on Capitol Hill and watched troop transports go by, agrees with judge's assessment that issue would be his emotional response to what happened

Questioned by AUSA, man says that if instructed to set aside feelings about the day from the defendant in this case, he thinks he could do that, and feels confident he could do that

Judge says she wants to drill down on this, man says he likes to think he could separate feelings about that day from thinking about Reffitt/evidence, but would be hard to fully separate from the feelings he has about what he/people close to him experienced

Questioned by Reffitt's lawyer, man says he'd do his best to examine evidence + base decision on that, also says he honestly can't say he can set aside his fear/alarm about what happened.

Reffitt's lawyer moves to strike, govt opposes. Friedrich says "close call" but will strike

#13, woman, indicated medical issue that would make it difficult to serve, discussing that privately with judge (lawyers listening in)

Back on public record, the woman says she knows Heather Shaner, one of the lawyers who is representing several defendants, said they had high-level convo about Jan. 6, don't have specific info about Reffitt and his case, has read general news about Jan. 6 + article about Shaner

Asked if she knows any specific info about Jan. 6 cases, woman references the "shaman guy" (that's nod #3 so far to Jacob Chansley, I believe)

Okay Friedrich is breaking for lunch. Where things stand:
- 13 prospective jurors have been questioned
- 3 striken for cause
- 1 moved to the bottom of the list b/c of conflict with Ash Wednesday (meaning they'll only come back to her if they're still trying to seat jurors)

We're back on with voir dire in the first Jan. 6 trial after the lunch break

#14: Kicking things off with another lawyer, but he says he's not practicing anymore, used to do tax, now at Deloitte. Said he's seen news about Jan. 6 generally, hasn't been actively seeking it out

#15, woman, the judge begins by noting that she meets the 70+ age threshold that she could excuse herself from serving, judge confirms she's here because she wants to serve, she says that's right, and has friends asking her, "why are you doing this?"

She says she wasn't happy to see what happened at the Capitol and to the people in it, but thinks she could be a fair juror; she says every person needs to be evaluated individually. No Qs from either lawyer, and she sounds disappointed: "Oh, I was hoping for more questions"

#16, man, says he has two friends who work in the Senate, at least one was definitely there on Jan. 6. He also says his stepmother served in the Trump admin. in ambassadorial roles. He says he's read a lot of coverage of Jan. 6, saw general info about Reffitt's case

A few comments from Friedrich so far confirming that prospective jurors could check their push alert settings to turn off news alert notifications

AUSA asks the man more about his stepmother who served in the Trump admin — he confirms she was still in her post on Jan. 6, but says they haven't discussed anything related to Jan. 6 (he doesn't think she was at the Capitol that day)

More questions from AUSA about the man's family ties, she asks if he'd be welcome at family events if he voted to convict, the man chuckles and says yes, that his father was a "major donor" to Trump and other GOPers but believes they're also duty-bound to serving country

The man had said his stepmother was the ambassador to Canada and then the ambassador to the UN under Trump, which would fit the description of Kelly Craft (his description of his dad's career also matches what's available publicly) bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-…

#17 I didn't get much about.

#18, man, says he lives close to the Capitol. Asked for his opinion of what happened, he said it was "unsavory" and that he didn't "care for it" but said he thinks he could set aside feelings to hear the case

#19, woman, says serving would be extreme hardship because of childcare responsibilities, feels "very strongly" b/c she works for the Library of Congress and had staff who she'd asked to come into work on Jan. 6 and they had to evacuate, staff who lived nearby and had to shelter

Woman has an exchange with the judge about whether the Library of Congress is part of the Capitol complex, she notes that there's an underground connection, which the judge said she didn't know about

#20, man, says he marked that serving would pose an extreme hardship because, "speaking from my heart," he says he believes everybody who went into the Capitol is guilty and should be "prosecuted to the max." He is, unsurprisingly, stricken

#21, woman, says she's formed an opinion that people who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6 are guilty and she wouldn't be able to follow the judge's instruction to set that aside

#22, woman, asked if she's familiar with Reffitt's case she says she saw a piece this morning in WaPo. Asked if she's formed an opinion about whether people are guilty, she says no, would have to look at the facts for each individual

Judge notes the woman marked that she has strong views on firearms, she explains that she's against guns but it wouldn't make her favor one side or another in this case

#23, woman, she didn't answer "yes" to any Q asked this morning. Judge asks if she's aware of Jan. 6 at all, she says yes, she saw news about it on TV, but only in passing and hasn't followed more about the cases, says the media sensationalizes so it's hard to know what's true

#24, man, says he knows a little bit about Jan. 6, when the judge asked about it he referred to people climbing over the walls, "I thought it was crazy," talks about being nervous to serve as a juror because it'd be his first time and also nervous about being fair

Asked if he'd favor the govt/prosecution or if he could come in open to hearing both sides and judge it fairly, he says he'd be able to judge the case fairly

There was some concern that this man took a pamphlet that was being handed out outside the courthouse, he takes out a piece of paper and starts to read it and it's clear it's just his jury summons or some other doc from the court, so all clear on that

#25, woman, works for NASA, HQ is near the Capitol but she was teleworking. Judge asked if she can see the Capitol from where she works, the woman quipped, not from her office. Said she'd read about Jan. 6 but couldn't recall specific cases, thought she could be impartial

#26, woman, shares hardship issue because she's responsible for picking up a 6-year-old family member. As for Jan. 6, she says she'd have a hard time following the judge's instruction to put aside her views about Jan. 6, would come in favoring the govt

After a bit more back and forth, #26 is stricken

#27, woman, has followed news about Jan. 6, can't recall specific names but another reference to "the guy with the horns." She said she has a strong opinion about Jan. 6, that it's "reprehensible," but believes she could decide a case on the facts

The woman says she's staying with a friend in Virginia post-breakup, but intends to find a new place in DC, after she leaves the lawyers and judge discuss whether she's eligible to serve here under the circumstances, it's not clear to them

This is a rough timeline: The woman explains the breakup was in October 2021, her dad died a week later and she went to Florida for an extended period to help take care of her mom, and then came back to the DC area at the start of this year, and is looking for a new place in DC

Woman says she still considers herself a DC resident, her car is registered in DC, she still has a DC address listed with her employer, is getting mail at the DC address.

After she leaves again, judge says she needs to look into this further, they'll put a pin in this for now

#28, man, says he's in PR, knows people who worked at the Capitol on Jan. 6, knows/works with journos who cover Jan. 6 issues, follows coverage closely and is aware of Reffitt, knows someone involved in organizing Stop the Steal rally and doesn't feel favorably towards them

Man repeats that he feels very strongly about Jan. 6, doesn't think he can put those feelings aside, also would struggle with an instruction to avoid news because it's part of his work

Reffitt's lawyers moves to strike, govt makes the case he could still serve because he said he'd have to vote to acquit if govt couldn't meet its burden. Friedrich strikes, saying the man said in about a dozen ways that's he'd be biased

#29, woman, says she has a connection to someone arrested re: Jan. 6, explains that he's the brother of a person she used to be friends with, doesn't have contact. She has opinions about Jan. 6 but says she think she could set those aside; she's also a lawyer, works for OPM

#30, man, says serving would be a hardship because he's a maintenance supervisor for a DCPS school, and a coworker is about to go on vacation, so that won't leave enough people if he's on the jury; also shares a health condition that would make it hard to serve

#31, man, says he's aware of Jan. 6 since it's been "ubiquitous" but says he's not actively following coverage, "I try pretty hard to avoid news"

AUSA asks why he avoids the news, he responds that research shows that not paying attention to news increases happiness (laughter in the media room), says he's not a big one for current events

#32, man, says he saw some coverage of Jan. 6 on TV but didn't really pay attention to it, remembers there was "chaos" and a lot going on, hasn't followed news about it since then

#33, woman, said she'd heard the parents of a friend of a friend from high school were at the Capitol, but didn't know anything else. Works for the Coast Guard, no other issues raised with her

#34, man, lives near the Capitol, walked over on Jan. 6 and saw all the activity, said he follows a lot of reporters on Twitter who cover Jan. 6, has strong opinions/biases about Jan. 6 that he couldn't set aside, notes he's a former spox for DHS

Reffit's lawyer moves to strike, citing his comments about strong feelings and bias; govt notes he said he'd try to set aside opinions if ordered. Friedrich says she disagrees with govt, the bar shouldn't be asking if they'd follow instructions if forced - he's stricken

That's the last one for today, Friedrich says they got to everyone they were hoping to get to today except around 8 people (they questioned 34 people)

They've qualified 25 people so far to go through to the next round, per court officer (they have to qualify enough people to have enough jurors to seat even if everyone exercises all possible strikes), the judge is hoping to get to openings tomorrow