Prosecutors believe that Cudd’s motion to postpone her trial due to potential impartial jurors should be dismissed as premature.
MIDLAND, Texas – (Editor’s note: The video above is from an earlier coverage of Cudd’s case.)
The United States Attorney’s Office denies Jenny Cudd’s motions to move her trial from Washington DC to Midland and separate her case from Eliel Rosa.
Cudd and Rosa are charged with participating in the January 6th riot at the United States Capitol and have been charged with multiple criminal offenses.
In court documents, the law firm argues that Cudd’s motion to postpone their trial, based largely on the voting papers and previous cases negotiated in DC, should be rejected as premature.
The office states that a thorough screening and review of each potential judge prior to trial will ensure that Cudd receives a fair trial.
With this process ongoing, the US Attorney’s Office says this application should be dismissed as premature.
However, the filing stated that during the review process it becomes clear that an impartial jury cannot be selected for Cudd, they are entitled to any action necessary to ensure they received a fair trial.
Cudd had cited a case against the Nixon administration that “the court said so”.[n]It is not without reason that the relevance of this information appears to have escaped the prosecution, the defendants, their attorney, and the court, and there has been no legal support for the claim that a community’s voting patterns are relevant to the jurisdiction at all. ”
The law firm also cites the Constitution, saying that all trials should take place in the state where the crimes were committed to avoid injustices and difficulties that would come with prosecuting the accused in a remote location.
In addition, the Office notes that hearing a defendant or any trial against him does not necessarily mean prejudice against him.
Documents also indicate that Cudd’s allegations that reporting would affect her ability to go to a fair trial do not indicate that the news source she cited is in Midland, where she hopes her trial will be relocated .
“Cudd gives no reason to believe that, at the beginning of their trial, the DC jury will likely be able to remember the coverage of them and distinguish them from what has been involved in the hundreds of other people who have been involved Were indicted in the Capitol Attack, “documents state.
Regarding Cudd’s motion to separate her trial from Rosas, the documents cite the precedent for two or more defendants to be charged together when they allegedly participated in the same act that constitutes the offenses.
Cudd’s concern about prejudice also came into play here. However, the law firm stated that the prejudice severance payment rule would only apply in cases of severe prejudice affecting one of the associates, which has not been proven in Cudd and Rosa’s case at the time.
Cudd also cited concerns about a voluntary statement Rosa reportedly made to the FBI and the possibility that Cudd would not be able to call Rosa as a witness if the two were tried together. The court stated that it would ensure that Cudd’s rights were not violated under the first point and that Cudd’s defense had not identified enough need for Rosa to testify at her trial.
The bureau also noted the need to examine whether “separate trials would involve (1) the production of the same evidence, (2) testimony from the same witnesses, and (3) the same unlawful conduct”.
Since Cudd and Rosa were both involved in the Capitol attack, both were from Midland, lived in the same hotel and were captured together in pictures and videos, and the evidence against each of them is largely the same, the court sees no need to separate theirs Cases.
At this point, the court has not yet made a decision as to whether or not it will side with Cudd or the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
NewsWest 9 will continue to cover the Cudd and Rosa trial and will bring the latest updates as they occur.