Trial of the Spokane 3, Day 1: ‘Please do not bring in politics. Please do not bring in politics.’

Every day this week, we’ll be covering the federal trial of the Spokane 3, local protesters charged with conspiracy for protesting ICE detainments on June 11, 2025. Read our primer on the case here. Read all our coverage of the protests and subsequent prosecutions here.

One potential juror likes alpine skiing and brewing his own beer. Another cares for a small herd of 50 goats. A third — who was dismissed by both parties — is obsessed with HAM radio, watches protester strategy videos on Youtube and is really into the far-right blog “Decode the Left,” that spreads theories about queer Marxism.

For nearly eight hours on Monday, Judge Rebecca Pennell, lawyers from the federal government and lawyers representing Jac Archer, Justice Forral and Bajun Mavalwalla II questioned members of the prospective jury about their beliefs and potential bias. Pennell said that the goal was for the court to get through jury selection and choose 15 people — 12 jurors and three alternates — who will ultimately decide the fate of the Spokane 3. If they were able to do that in a day, she said, she would give the defense more time for opening statements.

Before proceedings even began, the court excused three jurors for hardship reasons and another eight did not show up.

Unfortunately, proceedings didn’t move quickly enough to get to opening statements. It didn’t even move fast enough to get to the one hour of individual questioning each that the prosecutors and the defense were entitled to. It was a long day as the lawyers and judge tried to narrow the pool, with a few dramatic moments and a lot of fun facts as jury members introduced themselves. They shared their favorite media, their club memberships, their hobbies and any worries they might have about being fair and impartial jurors.

Of the pool of jurors that numbered more than 100, more than a few love Taylor Sheridan shows. At least eight count the Bible as their favorite book. Many don’t consume any news, or exclusively get their information from word of mouth, while another batch had heard about the exact case they were called to serve on.

Sixteen jurors were struck for knowing too much about the case and feeling like their knowledge would influence their ability to consider the evidence fairly and impartially, including HAM Radio Guy — whose answers to the court’s questions prompted both sets of lawyers to propose a codeword for when they universally agreed on cutting someone.

One man was cut because he was “the problem juror,” and the court had heard that he kept making comments about the case to other jurors. Another four were cut because they felt that they would be strongly prejudiced either in favor of or against testimony from law enforcement officers. Two more were cut for other “just cause” reasons.

Questionnaires sent out to all prospective jurors asked how they felt about the use of nonbinary pronouns and whether or not they could make fair decisions if a juror used they/them pronouns. The defense pushed two jurors who had put strong opinions on their forms, including one man who said he could make fair decisions because his “daughter is nonbinary,” and another that said he wouldn’t use they/them pronouns for a nonbinary person, but would “use their name instead.”

That prompted a strong reaction from the overflow room where media and viewers watched Pennell’s reactions — the jury and the lawyers were out of frame — as one person said, “You’re using they/them pronouns right now!”

The prosecutors focused their efforts on people who had written in strong negative opinions about the actions of the federal government and people with distrust of law enforcement officers. Lisa Cartier-Giroux, in particular, pushed juror number 59 about his opinions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. He described a distrust of federal agents and said “It’s tough to be an American these days,” but thought he could reach a fair verdict. Discussion on this juror reached such a fervor that when another juror walked into the courtroom on it, both she and 59 were dismissed.

Still, Pennell stressed that in the group jury setting, lawyers should not ask direct questions about jurors’ politics or political values.

“Please do not bring in politics,” she implored twice. “I’m not naive, I’m not a Pollyanna. I get it. But I want every juror to leave this courtroom thinking the system works and this is not about politics.”

We did not get a chance to see if lawyers could abide by this, as court ended for the day. Tomorrow, we can expect the court to narrow the pool to a group of 15, who won’t know who the 12 jurors are and who the three alternates are.

As a bonus, enjoy a list of favorite movies from a jury of your peers: