A federal judge rejected a last-minute argument by the Proud Boys' defense that prosecutors improperly discriminated against white jurors.
The ruling comes after 10 days of contentious jury selection in the trial of five members of the right-wing militant group accused of plotting to use force to prevent the certification of Joe Biden's election win on Jan. 6, 2021, and the 12-juror panel with four alternates are expected to be sworn in Wednesday with opening statements to follow, reported Law & Crime.
"This isn’t a situation at all where the effect of these peremptories is to render the jury bereft of white people or men,” ruled U.S. District Court judge Timothy Kelly, a Donald Trump appointee.
Nicholas Smith, an attorney for Ethan Nordean, argued that the jurors had not expressed sympathies for the rioters or Trump, so he could think of no valid reason to exclude them from the pool.
IN OTHER NEWS: Social conservatives have moved on from Trump — here's why
“None of these jurors expressed any sympathy for rioters or Donald Trump,” Smith argued. “There is no possible explanation that I can think of for cutting these jurors except for prohibited characteristics.”
The defense attorney argued that prosecutors used their peremptory challenges during jury selection to exclude five white men, including a Roman Catholic priest, and one white woman from the jury pool based on what he claims was improper discrimination based on race, gender and religion.
“This is disturbing,” Smith said. “Six of the eight were white jurors, five of those 6 were male. The statistics are 75 percent and over 80 percent.”
Kelly was not persuaded by Smith's argument but instructed prosecutors to justify their rejection of those jurors, which assistant U.S. attorney Jason McCullough said was based on factors such as perceived sympathies toward the Proud Boys, one candidate wearing a full suit to court, and concern that another's composure and professional status could allow him to "take control" of the jury.
“Having a concern about a juror having professional experience, for some reason — whatever the reason is — [that] would exercise undue influence over the other jurors, that is a very common concern to have about a jury,” the judge agreed.
