Outside the building, Torres said, jurors spent 10 to 15 minutes chatting with each other and no one approached them. After returning to the jury room, Torres recalled, the jury reached a verdict in about 30 minutes, concluding a roughly four-hour deliberation.
Mehta’s task is to determine not only whether jurors saw protesters, a common sight outside the federal courthouse in Washington, but whether any exposure could have significantly influenced their decision. Navarro was convicted after a two-day trial that featured testimony from three former employees of the Jan. 6 select committee.
They stated that Navarro refused to come forward for a statement or provide any documents to their investigators despite a valid subpoena. The House held Navarro in contempt of Congress in April 2022, and the Justice Department indicted him two months later on two counts of contempt of Congress.
Navarro’s brief trial belied the complex two-year pretrial debate over whether Trump had tried to shield Navarro from complying with the Jan. 6 committee by claiming executive privilege. Ultimately, Mehta ruled that Navarro had not shown that Trump asserted the privilege and could not claim it as a defense.
Navarro, speaking to reporters Wednesday, emphasized that prosecutors strongly linked the charges against him to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, and described congressional efforts to investigate the causes of that day’s violence and Navarro’s refusal to cooperate. By linking his contempt of court hearing to the attack, Navarro said, protesters holding signs related to Jan. 6 could have had more meaning for the jury in his case.
“I want to know what happened and how it happened,” Navarro said.
Navarro said prosecutors’ decision to link Navarro’s case to the Jan. 6 violence, particularly in their closing arguments just before the jury began deliberating, could play into any sign’s potential influence on the jury.
Navarro, who became visibly frustrated at times during questioning by the court security officer, is looking for anyone outside the courthouse who may have captured video or photos of the jury excursion to gauge how far they went be exposed to the demonstrators. He is also seeking answers about courtroom protocol for jurors and whether they are allowed to go outside to rest during deliberations.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Navarro’s lawyers strongly disputed Torres’ description of events. They expressed doubts that all 12 jurors left the building together — meaning some discussions of the case could have taken place without the full jury — and that the protesters had more influence on the jury’s final decision than that seemed Navarro’s attorney, John Rowley, showed a photo of jurors leaving the building and pressed Torres for more details about what signs might have been displayed.
Torres repeatedly indicated that he could not recall whether there was any sign beyond the one worn by the unidentified man with the American flag.
Mehta indicated that the attorneys would receive footage from courthouse security cameras that would depict the scene of the jury’s exit.
Prosecutors questioned Wednesday why Navarro’s defense team did not raise the issue of jurors’ outdoor recess until after a verdict was announced. If they had brought it up earlier, Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Aloi noted, Mehta could have asked if they had been influenced by something they saw outside the courtroom.
English 
Español de Venezuela