Finding no evidence of political bias, DC Circuit upholds Capitol rioter conviction
Thomas Webster, a retired New York police officer, was convicted of assaulting an officer at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, after prosecutors said he pushed the officer to the ground and pushed his gas mask into his face.
A unanimous D.C. Circuit panel on Tuesday upheld a Capitol rioter’s
10-year sentence and rejected his challenge that the jury was politically biased against him.
Thomas Webster, a retired New York police officer, was convicted in May 2022 of five felonies and a misdemeanor for clashing with police officers at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Authorities said Webster pushed an officer to the ground, got on top of him and pushed his gas mask into his face.
The three-judge panel, made up of U.S. Circuit Court judges Patricia Millett, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao — a Barack Obama appointee and two Donald Trump appointees, respectively — found that Webster did not clear the high bar required to prove prejudice.
“According to him, the District’s jury pool was simply too Democratic, too connected to the federal government, and too steeped in Jan. 6 news coverage to produce twelve unbiased jurors,” Millett
wrote in the court's opinion. The judges disagreed, tossing Webster's appeal.
Webster had tried to transfer his case out of the U.S. District for the District of Columbia. Such a move would have required overwhelming proof of presumptive prejudice, as the Sixth Amendment holds that criminal proceedings should occur in the district in which the crime was committed.
Webster failed to provide convincing evidence that press coverage of his case had created any preconceived notions about his guilt or innocence among the jury, Millett said. Rather, they were merely examples of “routine and objective press coverage of a criminal prosecution.”
Webster also pointed to a poll meant to gauge sentiments on the Capitol riot and the rioters among Washington’s jury pool, in which 400 registered voters provided a “decidedly negative impression” of those arrested in connection with the riot.
“Webster’s focus on the jury pool’s opinion of Jan. 6 and its perpetrators misses the point," Millett said. "We expect jurors to view significant criminal events in their hometown with an unapproving eye, whether it is the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, a murder, or an armed robbery spree."
Millett emphasized the Constitution forbids a juror to have a prejudicial opinion on an individual defendant’s guilt or innocence — not simply generalized disapproval of criminal conduct.
Millett acknowledged that Washington voters overwhelmingly voted for Biden and has historically voted for Democratic candidates.
Still, she said those political preferences do not prevent an individual from serving impartially as a juror. She noted that Washington juries have been impartial in many high-profile crimes committed by Republican officials, including the trials of former president Richard Nixon’s aides for attempting to cover up the
Watergate scandal.
In his appeal, Webster also took issue with jury selection, arguing the lower court rushed the process after it spent a day on voir dire. But "the Constitution does not require courts to take more time just for more time’s sake,” Millett said.
During his trial, Webster sought to cross-examine Officer Noah Rathbun, the officer he had pushed to the ground and mounted during the riot, regarding an unsubstantiated use-of-force claim that Rathbun faced after responding to an alleged kidnapping five months after the Capitol riot.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee who presided over Webster’s case at trial, allowed Webster to ask about the fact there was a pending investigation into the claim but not about the substance and nature of that case. After the Metropolitan Police Department found Rathbun’s use of force was justified, Webster’s defense attorney agreed not to raise the issue again.
In challenging his conviction and sentence, though, Webster argued his Sixth Amendment rights derived from the
Confrontation Clause — that is, the right of a defendant to confront witnesses brought against them — had been violated.
Here again, "Webster’s argument stumbles at the starting gate,” Millett wrote. She found that Mehta had made no ruling that Webster could argue was in error.
“Nor, in any event, could Webster show prejudice," Millett added. "Given the overwhelming video evidence against him — including at least four videos of the assault — there is no ‘reasonable probability’ that the jury would have acquitted him. When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes."
Thomas Webster, a retired New York police officer, was convicted of assaulting an officer at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, after prosecutors said he pushed the officer to the ground and pushed his gas mask into his face.
www.courthousenews.com
the guy who beat cops at the capitol for fun
is getting those cheeks clapped for a honeybun.
ten years in prison after becoming unglued;
for the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.