One of the lawyers for an accused capital rioter recently in a court filing complained
about the fact that the January 6th select committee's public televised hearings have
poisoned the jury pool against her client.
Here is what the lawyer had to say.
The committee has quote, spoonfed to the entire nation, a precisely choreographed rendition
of January six, defendants as insurrectionists and murderous, orchestrators of an attempted
co strong words.
And of course, as I said, they, they said, quote, they have poisoned the jury pool against
their client.
Now here's where I'm gonna argue the point.
Right?
Okay.
Cause your client is already on video.
Um, forming what they call a shield wall that they then use to BU rush the cops and, and
knock them down so they could get into the, to the capital.
So that's already a piece of evidence against your client.
So I don't think anything from the January 6th committee is as bad for your client as
the piece of evidence that's already in, in the court.
So you can wh and and moan all you want about what's happening with the January 6th select
committee hearings, but it doesn't change.
The facts that all the committee is doing is putting out facts.
And the prosecution in your particular case has much stronger evidence against your client
than anything the committee could ever hope to have.
Here's the reality here, the January 6th committee in their public televised hearings, they have
not focused very much on the capital rioters themselves.
Sure.
They have a little, they've shown some video.
Sure.
But the question is, did they show video of your client?
Because if not on its face, your argument holds no merit.
Not to mention the fact that your client is already on video.
Also on top of that, if the committee is making capital rioters look bad, they're not doing
it by going out there and slandering or defaming these individuals, all they're literally doing
is showing the video clips.
Most of which we're already shown on TV.
Some of them of course are new that we've never seen before until the committee showed
them.
But that's just the news and sure news can in fact, taint a potential jury pool.
We see it all the time.
I mean, trials all over the place.
People come in with preconceived notions.
But if you're trying to what get a mistrial, maybe if you're trying to say that your client
shouldn't even stand trial, I don't get it.
But I do understand, of course, that these defense
Lawyers have to do whatever they can, you know, with what little they have to work with
to try to get their clients off.
That's what defense attorneys do.
I they're, they're required to do that, you know, or else they're gonna face legal malpractice
claims.
So they have to go out there and fight.
So I don't envy these lawyers that have to go out there and defend these accused capital
rioters, right?
That is an uphill battle that, uh, few people are gonna be able to be successful with.
And in fact, so far, no lawyers that have gone to trial have been successful with it,
with these capital rioters.
So wh about the jury pool being quote, poisoned, all you want, all the committees done is show
what happened that day.
And if that makes your client look bad, it's because what they did was exceptionally bad.