Republished with full copyright permissions from The San Francisco Press.

The ongoing legal battle of Peter Navarro, former economic adviser to Donald Trump, has taken an unexpected turn. After being indicted for contempt of Congress and subsequently getting convicted, Navarro’s defense team has requested a new trial. Their claim is that the jury’s verdict might have been unduly influenced by the presence of protestors outside the courthouse.

Background:
Back in June 2022, Navarro’s refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas led to his indictment for contempt of Congress. Throughout the trial, Navarro represented himself before hiring legal counsel. However, despite having legal representation, his conviction on both counts still stood. Undeterred, Navarro’s lawyers moved for a new trial, citing concerns related to the jury’s exposure to protestors during a break.

Allegations and Evidence:
In a dramatic filing, Navarro’s legal team argued that the jury had been paraded past a crowd of protestors, carrying signs with inflammatory statements relating to Navarro’s case. They maintained that this exposure could have unduly influenced the jurors’ decision-making process. They further alleged that there was video footage showing the jurors leaving the courthouse in close proximity to protestors and news media.

Judge Mehta’s Response:
However, Judge Amit Mehta, presiding over Navarro’s case, requested evidence to support these allegations. He required Navarro’s defense to produce documentation confirming the presence of protestors in John Marshall Park and carrying signs as described by Navarro’s legal team. The judge’s request indicates skepticism and raises doubts about the validity of the defense’s claims.

As the legal battle continues, the question of potential juror influence remains unanswered. Judge Mehta’s call for evidence underscores the necessity of substantiating such serious allegations. It is essential for the integrity of the legal process that all claims are supported by concrete evidence. The response from Navarro’s defense will undoubtedly shed further light on this contentious issue.