Judge Denies Peter Navarro’s Request for New Contempt Trial

Peter Navarro, former trade adviser to President Donald Trump, speaks to reporters as he departs U.S. District Court after he was indicted on two counts of contempt of Congress for his failure to comply with a subpoena from the House of Representatives committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, in Washington, on June 3, 2022. Kevin Lamarque/Reuters

D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta has rejected former White House adviser Peter Navarro’s request for a new trial, ruling that Mr. Navarro waited too long to bring the motion and failed to show prejudicial influence on jurors.

Mr. Navarro is facing potential jail time after a jury found him guilty of two charges of contempt of Congress. His sentencing hearing is scheduled for Jan. 25. Mr. Navarro had argued in an Oct. 6 motion that the jury was prejudiced by protesters they were near while taking a break outside of the E. Barrett Prettyman courthouse in Washington.

“Prior to reaching their verdict, these jurors found themselves face to face with protestors, and at least some of whom referred to members of the Trump administration or the events at the United States Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 as ’terrorists’ and called for their conviction,” his motion read.

“The jurors were exposed to this information at a crucial point in the proceedings, while their deliberations were ongoing but prior to a verdict having been reached. Nevertheless, mere minutes after their exposure to the scene outside the Courthouse, the jury returned its verdict convicting Dr. Navarro of both counts of contempt of congress. Only a new trial can ensure that Dr. Navarro’s conviction is free from any prejudice caused by the jury’s exposure to the scene outside the Courthouse that day.”

Conflicting Interpretations

Judge Mehta disagreed with Mr. Navarro’s characterization of the break, calling the scene “relatively placid” and citing a court security officer’s testimony that no one approached or spoke to the jurors.

“Defendant’s motion ... fails on the merits,” Judge Mehta said. “Defendant has not shown that any prejudice resulted from the jury’s eight-minute break outside the courthouse.”

Judge Mehta also criticized the timing of Mr. Navarro’s motion.

“Although this case does not involve juror misconduct, the logic underlying the waiver rule applies with equal force,” wrote Judge Mehta. “A defendant cannot learn of alleged improper external influence on the jury, remain silent and gamble on a favorable verdict, only to complain afterwards that a new trial is warranted because the jury was unduly prejudiced by that outside influence. ... That is precisely what occurred here.”

“Defense counsel admitted that they knew of the jury’s potential exposure to protestors before the verdict, but nevertheless failed to timely raise it with the court.”

Mr. Navarro derided Judge Mehta’s ruling in an email to The Epoch Times. “Just another quiet day of put Peter in prison and free the [Jan. 6] prisoner signs outside the courtroom as jurors in the middle of deliberations inexplicably roam free,” he said. “Nothing apparently to see here.”

His Oct. 6 motion had some heavy criticism of the trial, which surrounded his refusal to comply with the House Jan. 6 Committee’s subpoena.

“[In] what can only be described as a landmark result, on September 7, 2023, a jury convicted Dr. Peter K. Navarro of two charges of contempt of congress after he refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the U.S. House of Representatives’ Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol at the direction of former President Donald J. Trump,” it reads.

“Dr. Navarro’s conviction marks the first time a senior presidential advisor has been convicted of contempt of congress [sic], let alone prosecuted for that offense. And it comes following the Court’s ruling—as required by binding D.C. Circuit precedent—that Dr. Navarro was precluded from even explaining to the jury that he refused to comply with the subpoena at the direction of former President Trump.”

Other Cases

Mr. Navarro vowed to appeal his convictions, which included willful failure to provide records and willful failure to appear for testimony. Each charge carried the possibility of a $100,000 fine and 30 days to a year in prison.

His prosecution was one of many brought against President Trump’s associates and others present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

A jury similarly convicted former White House adviser Steve Bannon of contempt in his refusal to comply with the House committee’s subpoena. In November, Mr. Bannon’s attorney told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the district court had wrongfully excluded evidence that Mr. Bannon’s attorney advised him that President Trump’s invocation of executive privilege allowed Mr. Bannon to avoid the subpoena.

That appeal is pending, as are others related to the events on Jan. 6. President Trump himself is currently in the process of appealing D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s refusal to accept his motion to dismiss for reasons of presidential immunity.