Thread by @smencimer

Back in federal court today for closing arguments in the trial of January 6 defendant and international underwear model John Strand. He is wearing some excellent shoes—silver loafers with a red stripe up the back, bare ankles. Not a look you see much at the defense table!

The case has now gone to the jury. It’s possible we could have a verdict today. It seems clear Strand will be convicted of something but not clear what. Much will depend on how much of a dumbass the jury thinks he is. His own lawyer called him a “poseur” in closing.

Strand is charged with 5 criminal counts, but one is a felony that carries a max 20 yr sentence if he’s convicted. That’s obstructing an official proceeding. Given his presence at the front of the mob at the door to the House chamber, he’s probably at risk here.

At least one Jan 6 rioter has been found guilty in this charge: washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/…

Strand’s court appointed lawyer tried to paint him as victim of a powerful older woman @drsimonegold without whom he would have never entered the Capitol. AUSA April Ayres-Perez responded “John Strand was 37 yr old man. He was not being dragged around the Cap. by his mother.”

Part of Strand’s defense is that he wasn’t wearing any MAGA gear or tactical stuff at the Capitol. But he doesn’t seem like much of a baseball cap sorta guy given how much time he obviously spends on his hair, which has been gelled to perfection throughout the trial.

He spent almost an hour inside the Capitol on Jan 6, wearing aviator glasses inside the building like he was on a photo shoot.

I confess it’s hard for me to look at some of the photos of Strand at the Capitol without thinking of Zoolander.

See what I mean?

This is a very random aside, but I've been called for jury duty in this very courthouse I've been camped out in for the past week. I LOVE jury duty, but sadly I'm guessing no lawyer is really going to want me to serve on anything scheduled for October/November, or well, ever.

By way of background, it took a DC federal jury about 4 hours to convict Doug Jensen on all 7 criminal counts on Friday, including obstruction. He was one of the first rioters to enter the Capitol, wearing a QAnon t-shirt. usatoday.com/story/news/pol…

Jensen's case was only the 9th #J6 case to go to trial. Not sure if that makes Strand 8 or 10. But very few of the more than 850 defendants are choosing trial, no doubt because of the sheer volume of video evidence, and as with Strand, their own social media admissions.

For most of the Strand trial the only other reporter regularly in the courtroom has been from the Epoch Times, an outlet the NYT describes as a “global scale misinformation machine.” But towards the end we’ve been joined by OAN. If you’d like a different take on this trial….

https://twitter.com/chanelrion/status/1574419445984153602

Lawyers back in the courtroom. No word on the jury just yet.

The jury has sent a note to the judge asking for clarification on the definition of intent, which is not surprising. It’s the most difficult question in this case and has bearing on the most serious charges.

Intent is the difference between just being a rando in the Capitol and intending to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. I don’t envy the jury. It’s a tough one.

The last criminal trial I covered was of Cliven and Ammon Bundy for the 2014 Nevada ranch standoff with the BLM. There are some similarities with the Jan 6 cases. But that trial in Nevada never got very far before the judge found prosecutorial misconduct and ruled a mistrial.

I also covered some of a terrorism trial here in DC around the same time: motherjones.com/politics/2017/…

The government seems to be doing a better job in the Strand trial, probably because they are doing a ton of these cases. Even so, Strand’s lawyer may have succeeded in getting a verdict that won’t be too much worse than if he’d pleaded guilty. Hopefully we will find out soon.

Hopes dashed. The jury has called it quits for the day. Back tomorrow at 9:30. I told you intent was hard!

I can’t remember the trial lore—legal twitter help me out here—but I think the fact that the jury is taking so long to deliberate is good for Strand. Definitely not a slam dunk for the government.