legal-document-to-plain-english-translator/”>Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration

Find a LOCAL lawyer

CNN ÔÇô Former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has been convicted of contempt of Congress for not complying to a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Navarro is the second ex-aide to former President Donald Trump to be prosecuted for his lack of cooperation with the committee. Steve Bannon was convicted last year on two contempt counts. BannonÔÇÖs case is currently on appeal.

Navarro pledged to appeal based on executive privilege issues. ItÔÇÖs a ÔÇ£sad day for America, not ÔÇÿcause ÔǪ they were guilty verdicts, because I canÔÇÖt come out and have an honest, decent conversation with the people of America,ÔÇØ Navarro told reporters outside the courthouse after he was interrupted by protesters. ÔÇ£People of America, I want you to understand that this is the problem we have right here ÔÇô this kind of divide in our country between the woke Marxist left and everybody else here. And this is nuts,ÔÇØ he added.

After the verdict was read, NavarroÔÇÖs lawyers sought a mistrial, raising concerns about any influence alleged protestors may have had when jurors took a break outdoors Thursday afternoon. US District Judge Amit Mehta did not immediately rule on the motion. The judge scheduled NavarroÔÇÖs sentencing for January 12, 2024.

Prosecutors told the jury during closing arguments Thursday that Navarro ÔÇ£made a choiceÔÇØ not to comply with a February 2022 subpoena. Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Aloi said that government only works if people play by the rules and are held accountable if they donÔÇÖt. ÔÇ£The subpoena ÔÇô it is not hard to understand,ÔÇØ she said, adding that Navarro knew ÔÇ£what he was required to do and when he was required to do it.ÔÇØ

NavarroÔÇÖs attorney Stanley Woodward contested the idea that the subpoena was simple, staying that the subpoena did not specify where in the Capitol complex Navarro was supposed to show up for his deposition. He also said that prosecutors failed to prove that Navarro was willful in his failure to comply with the subpoena, arguing that prosecutors hadnÔÇÖt established that his non-compliance with the demand for testimony was not the result of a mistake or accident.

AI legalese decoder can provide assistance in this situation by analyzing the legalities of the case and deciphering complex legal language for a better understanding of the issues at hand. It can help clarify the requirements of the subpoena and examine the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense. By utilizing AI legalese decoder, lawyers and individuals involved in the case can gain valuable insights to inform their strategies and decision-making.

ÔÇ£Why didnÔÇÖt the government present evidence to you about where Dr. Navarro was or what he was doingÔÇØ on the day of the scheduled deposition, Woodward asked the jury. ÔÇ£Something stinks.ÔÇØ Prosecutor John Crabb responded: ÔÇ£Who cares where he was. What matters is where he wasnÔÇÖt.ÔÇØ Crabb repeatedly referred to Navarro as ÔÇ£that manÔÇÖ while pointing to him, telling the jury at one point, ÔÇ£that man thinks he is above the law.ÔÇØ

The gestures elicited strong reactions from Navarro, who at times threw up his hand, shook his head, or laughed. Woodward eventually jumped up and whispered to his client, and the two stood quietly together for the remainder of the proceeding. The jury was attentive during closing arguments, watching carefully as lawyers presented their final case. Navarro stood directly across the room with his hands clasped and stared at jurors intently.

After the jury was dismissed, Woodward told the judge that the defense was seeking a mistrial because they had learned the jury had taken an outdoor break shortly before rendering the verdict and that during that break, they were around a ÔÇ£numberÔÇØ of January 6-related protestors demonstrating and chanting outside of the court.

ÔÇ£ItÔÇÖs obvious the jury would have heard those protestors,ÔÇØ Woodward said. ÔÇ£ItÔÇÖs impossible for us to know what influence that would haveÔÇØ on their verdict. Crabb challenged the idea that there were protestors in the park next to the courthouse where the jurors took their break. Woodward countered that Navarro himself had been ÔÇ£accostedÔÇØ earlier in the day by a protestor when he was coming through that park.

Mehta said he knew that jurors had asked to take their break outside, where they were accompanied by a court security officer, but that he was not aware that protestors were in the park. He told Woodward that he was not going to rule on the mistrial request without receiving more briefing and evidence.

Navarro joined the Trump White House to advise on trade and became a well-known face of the Trump administration, while earning a reputation for sparring behind the scenes with his White House colleagues. He played a prominent role in the administrationÔÇÖs Covid-19 response as well. He led some of the efforts to speed up the deployment of medical supplies and also was a defender of fringe Trump views about the virus, including the former presidentÔÇÖs advocacy of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine.

Navarro was still working at the White House in the period after the 2020 election and lost a pre-trial fight to argue to the jury that Trump asserted an executive privilege that shielded him from the subpoena, and he and his attorneys have signaled that, if convicted, he will raise that and other legal issues on appeal. ÔÇ£So todayÔÇÖs ÔÇÿJudgment Day,ÔÇÖÔÇØ Navarro told reporters as he walked into the courthouse Thursday. ÔÇ£I have been stripped, stripped of virtually every defense by the court and yet there is some defense left and the reality here is the government has not proved his case,ÔÇØ he said. ÔÇ£Please understand that the Biden-weaponized Department of Justice is the biggest law firm in the world. ThatÔÇÖs what IÔÇÖm fighting against.ÔÇØ

The trial itself moved forward this week with notable speed and simplicity. It took less than a day for the jury to hear all the evidence in the case. Prosecutors put just three witnesses on the stand, all former staff members of the House January 6 committee. The Justice Department used their testimony to make the case that the committee had good reason to subpoena Navarro and that he was informed repeatedly of its demands.

In her closing argument, prosecutor Aloi told the jury that Navarro ÔÇ£had knowledge about a plan to delay the activities of Congress on January 6.ÔÇØ ÔÇ£The defendant was more than happy to share that knowledgeÔÇØ in television interviews and in other public remarks, Aloi said, ÔÇ£except to the congressional committee that could do something aboutÔÇØ preventing a future attack.

Woodward sought to paint the mention about the attack on the Capitol and the disruption of the peaceful transfer of power as a distraction. ÔÇ£This case is not about what happened on January 6,ÔÇØ Woodward said in his closing argument. NavarroÔÇÖs defense team engaged in only brief cross-examination, questioning just one of the governmentÔÇÖs witnesses. His lawyers were focused on the element of the charge that requires a showing that Navarro was willful and deliberate in his decision not to comply with the subpoena ÔÇô meaning that his lack of compliance was not the result of an inadvertent mistake or accident.

The defense did not put on any witnesses of their own, having abandoned a plan to call an FBI agent who worked on the Justice Department probe into Navarro for questioning on the lack of DOJ investigating into NavarroÔÇÖs whereabouts on the day his committee deposition was scheduled.

NavarroÔÇÖs service as a Trump White House aide has generated continuing legal troubles for the former trade adviser ÔÇô troubles that go beyond the criminal case. The Justice Department brought a civil lawsuit against him to obtain government records from NavarroÔÇÖs personal email account that were withheld from the National Archives upon his departure from government. He has appealed the ruling against him in that case. This story has been updated with additional developments.

legal-document-to-plain-english-translator/”>Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration

Find a LOCAL lawyer

Reference link