The Trial of the Spokane 3 is headed into its second week with the defendants’ cases, as the prosecution rested last Friday. Though the defendants — Jac Archer, Justice Forral and Bajun Mavalwalla II — are in court together, each must present their own case and the jury will ultimately rule on each defendant separately.
Because the charge of conspiracy requires each person charged with it to have knowingly entered into an agreement with the shared purpose of “impeding or injuring federal officers using force, threat or intimidation,” at the crux of most of today’s testimony was the question of intent: What did each defendant intend when they went to the protest? Did they ever knowingly join an agreement that would call for the use of force, threat or intimidation against federal officers or their property?
While Mavalwalla’s case was slated to be the first presented, the court first heard from a witness for Forral: Spokane Police Department Officer Christopher Smith, who talked mostly about how Forral did not resist arrest and was nonviolent when taken into custody. The rest of the morning was devoted to Mavalwalla’s case, which rested at 11:37 am. From that point on, the court heard from Archer’s witnesses, which included two protesters and Archer themself.
The day ended at 5 pm when Archer, too, rested their case, which means just Forral has evidence left to present in the morning. Judge Rebecca Pennell told the attorneys to prepare to deliver their closing arguments tomorrow. Depending on the timing, it is technically possible that the jury returns a verdict tomorrow.
That’s your summary! For the nitty-gritty digest, read on.
The character witnesses
For Mavalwalla’s case, lawyer Aine Ahmed called multiple character witnesses to attest to Mavalwalla’s values of “law-abiding” and “peacefulness.” This was an interesting process; essentially, Mavalwalla called three people to the stand — two friends and Mavalwalla’s boss — and asked them if they knew him well enough to attest to his law-abiding or peaceful nature, or both. Witnesses were told to answer only with either “good” or “not good.”
All of the witnesses, including former congressional candidate Dr. Bernadine Bank, testified “good.”
On cross examination, assistant US attorney Rebecca Perez asked each of the witnesses if they’d been there on June 11 and if they saw Mavalwalla’s conduct during the protests. None of the witnesses had been there, and none had seen his conduct, save someone who saw a video on social media, which she wasn’t allowed to testify about. This moved quickly, cycling through all three character witnesses in just ten minutes.
The protesters
Though the government issued Fifth Amendment notices, warning protesters on early witness lists that they could incriminate themselves with their testimony if they were present on June 11, two protesters agreed to testify as Archer’s witnesses.
The first was Liz Moore, the executive director of Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane (PJALS), who prosecution identified as “an individual of investigatory interest.” Over the last week, they’ve also taken pains to point Moore out on multiple evidentiary videos played for the court.
Moore talked at length about Archer’s training with PJALS in nonviolence and deescalation at protests in her direct testimony.
One of the pillars of that training is to “use our outrage at injustice as a positive nonviolent force. We don't return the assault of people who assault us, “Moore said. “We don't hold or use weapons or things that could be construed as weapons.”
She said the protest was not planned, but spontaneous, which can create risks for protesters, and that Archer did their best to organize people in the moment to keep them safe, asking people to make informed choices and to act in the spirit of nonviolent civil disobedience.
In one of the most contentious moments of the day, Moore was asked about a moment caught on video where former City Council President Ben Stuckart can be heard telling protesters to be peaceful. In the video, Moore jumps on a bullhorn to say that it’s not about being peaceful, it’s about preventing the bus from moving and being “disciplined and nonviolent.”
She started to explain why she didn’t use the word peaceful, but before she could finish her answer, she referenced the right to freedom of speech. Perez uttered a fierce objection, and the other prosecutor, Lisa Cartier-Giroux, moved to strike Moore’s answer. There was a flurry of activity, that turned into a private conference with the judge, that then turned into a full lunch break.
Right before the break, after the jury was sent out, Pennell stressed that Moore is able to testify to her own state of mind and what her intent was, but should avoid terms like “First Amendment rights” or “Freedom of Speech,” per the motion Pennell approved in pre-trial conferences. Pennell also told the lawyers that they needed to chill out (this is a paraphrase.)
"It’s been a stressful case for everyone involved so please check your emotions," Pennell said. “It is inappropriate for counsel for either side to be passing on their assessment of what a witness is saying by facial expressions.” (RANGE could not see most of the attorneys’ faces from their positions in the courtroom.)
After lunch, Moore repeatedly stressed from the stand that the intent of the protesters was to be nonviolent and to use civil disobedience to show their displeasure with ICE’s actions. Archer was always trying to keep people safe, Moore said, repeatedly telling protesters near them, “If you are going to risk arrest, can you take a punch without throwing one?"
She described staying at the gate even after they knew the young men had been transported because, “we were expressing our commitment to not leave before the police left and to our right to protest and to our commitment to our immigrant neighbors.”
On cross-examination, Perez hammered Moore, repeatedly asking about her intent in standing in front of the south gate and linking arms. Perez has repeatedly called protesters linking arms “force,” and characterized their efforts to stand in the gate as “pushing back,” rather than just allowing themselves to be pushed by federal agents. She did the same in her questioning of Moore, who kept reiterating her stance that they linked arms as a show of commitment.
Still, despite the implications that she was being investigated too, Moore gave a full testimony, never pleading the Fifth, and consistently characterizing Archer as someone who was trying to keep others safe and trying to bring some order to the chaos of the spontaneous event.
The second protester called was Laura Tewell, a school teacher who joined the protest on the spur of the moment after driving past it.
“In my head, I thought they just kidnapped two people,” she said. “So I just stopped. It felt wrong to turn my back and leave the situation like that.”
Tewell had no idea what was going on when she got there, but she just sort of followed the crowd and ended up linking arms with Archer.
“I just didn't want to get hurt or fall down. I wasn't thinking a lot at that point,” Tewell said. “I was mostly just afraid and trying to mitigate getting hurt or falling on someone else.”
During the protest, Tewell remembers Archer telling people, “we are not hitting back, we are not pushing back,” and saying, “If you can’t take a punch without throwing one, you need to leave.”
On cross-examination, she was pushed by Perez on the details of the south gate of the ICE facility, what protesters wanted and whether they were ignoring law enforcement.
Tewell, who joked on the stand about her outfit not being her best color and her husband being able to attest to her selective focus, kept saying she didn’t remember or couldn’t tell what was happening behind her. Despite more pressure from Perez, Tewell repeated that protesters did not “push back,” did not use force and that Archer was always trying to calm people down.
The defendants
Two defendants testified today: Mavalwalla and Archer.
In the morning, Mavalwalla spoke. His testimony mostly consisted of him attesting that he knew nobody at the protest before he got there and went because he saw a Reddit post. As a veteran who has worked with Afghan refugees, he feels passionately about protecting refugees.
"I believe very strongly in the peoples' right to immigrate to the US and seek asylum and I believe that people have a duty to speak up when they see something they think is wrong." Mavalwalla said.
Caption: Bajun Mavalwalla II takes the stand to testify about his involvement in the June 11, 2025 protest. Art by Jake Gillespie.
He defended some of his conduct that had been under question from the prosecution, like wearing gloves (he said to protect his hands), handing things to the protesters (water bottles, he said) and kicking a smoking canister (it wasn’t at cops, just away from him, he said.)
Mavalwalla reiterated that it was not his intent to block the bus, and that he wasn’t telling people to join him, but just making sure that people knew what was going on. He said he was just one of many protesters at the gate, and he had a right to be there. He also repeated that he did not intend to intimidate anyone or use force at any point.
He was only ever “defensive,” Mavalwalla said, when he was at the south gate and when he had an umbrella.
During one of the funniest moments of Mavalwalla’s testimony, Perez describes him spinning with his arms out in front of the crowd right after local law enforcement deployed smoke and pepper balls.
“That was intended to be intimidating to the officers, right?” she asked.
Mavalwalla said no.
Perez said “How could that be anything but [intimidating]?”
Mavalwalla responded, “Spinning like an airplane?” as the crowd giggled.
The tone of Archer’s testimony and cross examination was more serious.
Archer described coming into the protest with the understanding that they might possibly do civil disobedience — like sitting in front of the bus and refusing to move. They knew the consequences of that — usually a misdemeanor.
“All protests carry a risk of arrest, that's just a fact of protest, but certainly civil disobedience can lead to arrest and people were at this point sitting in front of the doors to the white bus,” Archer said.
They remembered trying to bring some semblance of organization to what they described as a spontaneous protest with no plan. Archer was worried that if some people weren’t talked to, they might, “choose their own adventure, and that might turn into a misadventure.”
When it came to linking arms, that was also an intentional choice, they said, meant to ensure nonviolence.
"When your arms are linked you can't hit anyone. Not only are you holding someone but they're holding you," Archer said. "It was also a great symbol of solidarity to stand or sit with our arms linked together."
Archer likened their actions and intent to the civil rights lunch-counter sit-ins of the 60s — they knew they could get arrested but were going to go sit somewhere they weren’t allowed because of their principles. This was why they can be heard in voice memos and seen on social media posts asking for people willing to risk arrest, they said.
On cross, Cartier-Giroux peppered Archer with questions about their role in what the prosecution characterized as leading the protest, and sticking to a plan. She also asked questions about their decision to risk arrest. The examination lasted over an hour, as Archer reiterated their stance over and over: when they said risking arrest, they meant civil disobedience.
Cartier-Giroux once asked if Archer was “linking arms to push back,” and Archer replied, “I don’t know how I would push someone without the use of my hands.”
“My testimony is that my only intent in this entire scene is to keep from eating pavement,” Archer said of the events at the south gate.
They said they never intended to use force or intimidate officers, just to express that they weren't, “going to be complicit in the kidnapping by doing nothing.”
At roughly 5 pm, Cartier-Giroux ended her cross-examination and Archer’s team rested their case. Tomorrow, Forral will present their case, and likely, the prosecution and all three defendants will give their closing arguments. Depending on how quickly all that goes, the case could be handed over to the jury tomorrow as well.
For a full blow by blow, read our live post here.
Editor’s Note: On the stand, federal prosecutors asked Archer if this reporter was the one to yell “Fight, Jac, Fight,” on one of the audio recordings. For the record, she was not, though she can be heard yelling periodically, “I’m press, don’t touch me.”
