Fogbow

Jury selection begins Monday at 930am in high-profile US Capitol riot case of former NYPD officer Thomas Webster.

(Noting: Same judge who'll be eventually be handling the Jan 6 case of the accused OathKeeper conspirators)

Trial begins this week for former Marine & NYPD officer Thomas Webster who once served on former mayor's detail

Webster has argued self-defense & that an officer incited Jan 6 mob

All Jan 6 defendants to face jurors have been convicted

He tried & failed to move case outta DC

Sitting in on voir dire for Jan. 6 def Thomas Webster's trial, and since I got here:
- fed employee who wouldn't ID what agency she works for but came in contact w/ FBI
- man who raised jury service concern in light of DC's lack of representation
- reporter who was at the Capitol

Hello from the DC federal courthouse, where Day 2 of Jan. 6 defendant Thomas Webster's trial is set to start at 9am.

On Webster's self defense claim, what jurors saw on video of his alleged assault of a police officer, and the first round of witnesses:

Video evidence in the case against former NYPD cop Thomas Webster shows what officers were going through when he swung a flagpole at the police line:

After the jury left for a break, Judge Amit Mehta warned Webster's lawyer James Monroe to stay away from questions/testimony from his client that veers into presenting Webster, a former Marine and retired NYPD cop, as an expert on police use of force practices

A former Marine and retired New York police officer accused of assaulting a DC police officer at the US Capitol on Jan. 6 took the stand Thursday to argue why what on video looks like him swinging a flagpole at officers, charging and knocking an officer to the ground, and then grabbing at the officer’s helmet and gas mask were all in self-defense.

Over four hours of testimony, Thomas Webster maintained that Metropolitan Police Department Officer Noah Rathbun incited a physical confrontation when he made a hand gesture inviting Webster to fight, a claim that Rathbun denied. Webster told the jury that the rest of his exchanges with Rathbun were in response to a “punch” from the officer that felt like a “freight train,” another account that Rathbun denied. Videos played in court showed Rathbun leaning toward Webster and his open hand making contact with Webster’s face; Rathbun on Wednesday described the contact as incidental to his effort to swat at Webster to create distance during a volatile situation.

Nielsen asked Webster if there was any mark on him in the “patriots” video that would show where Rathbun had hit him. Webster identified a cut below the left side of his mouth, prompting Nielsen to note that Webster had said Rathbun struck him on the right side of his head. Webster said he’d been hit twice. Webster’s lawyer, James Monroe, has heavily focused their defense on the hit to the head, although earlier in the day, Webster indicated Rathbun had been trying to hit him again when they were both on the ground.

The prosecution is expected to continue questioning Webster on Friday; Webster’s lawyer plans to present several short character witnesses to the jury before resting the defense presentation. After the jury left for the day, Mehta expressed frustration with both sides — at the government for failing to ask more concise, directed questions, and with Webster for trying to expand his answers beyond the scope of what Nielsen had asked. The judge gave both sides the “homework” of tightening up the examination when the trial kicked off again in the morning.

After the jury left for the day, Mehta expressed frustration with both sides — at the government for failing to ask more concise, directed questions, and with Webster for trying to expand his answers beyond the scope of what Nielsen had asked. The judge gave both sides the “homework” of tightening up the examination when the trial kicked off again in the morning.

FEDERAL BURDEN-OF-PROOF RULE IN SELF-DEFENSE CLAIMS

In federal court the prosecution has the burden of disproving self-defense, once the claim has been properly raised. This rule does not appear in either Title 18 of the federal statutes or the Rules of Criminal Procedure but is established by common law. (In the federal system many of the defenses, such as duress, entrapment, and self-defense, are common law defenses.) The federal standard is that once a defendant meets the initial burden of producing sufficient evidence for the judge to give a jury instruction on self-defense, the burden shifts to the government to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. (See United States v. Thomas, 34 F.3d 44,47 (2d Cir. 1994).)

According to Richard Reeve, a New Haven attorney who was a federal public defender, all federal jury instructions apply to this standard and the case law is consistent. Reeve says that self-defense issues rarely arise in federal court other than when "state" offenses such as murder or assault occur on federal property. He mentioned that in the context of a duress defense, Judge Newman underscored that the burden is on the government and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt because of substantial dangers of jury confusion if the burden were merely preponderance of the evidence.

Reeve also referred to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that a state statute placing the burden of proof in a self-defense context on the defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence, did not violate due process. This case was mentioned in 99-R-0380.

The defense rested, no govt rebuttal. The lawyers are in with the judge finalizing jury instructions. The jury will come back after lunch (when Mehta also has to take the Oath Keepers plea) to hear instructions and closing args, and then assuming there's time, start deliberating

RTH10260 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:32 am how come one gets to claim self defense when one was illegally in that location in the first place?

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:56 am IIRC Webster was the eye gouger.

Arguments have concluded and the case is in the jury's hands. They'll be back at 9:30 a.m. on Monday to pick up deliberations in earnest. Some notes from James E. Monroe's closing argument:

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 7:23 pm Guilty. 25 years. I have spoken.

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 4:13 pm Uhm, not currently.