Gregory Craig. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ

When the bespectacled man in a light blue t-shirt walked into court Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia first wanted to know what he’d heard about the Greg Craig case.

That morning, with statues of Moses and Hammurabi above him and more than 100 other prospective jurors gathered in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse’s ceremonial courtroom, the man had written the number “5” in pencil on a blue notecard, signifying he had some familiarity with the case. In the witness chair a couple hours later, in Jackson’s courtroom, he was asked to elaborate.

He said he’d followed the Russia investigation “with some interest” and recalled being surprised to read that someone who’d worked for President Barack Obama was “implicated in the matter.” Then he read that the case against Obama’s first White House counsel involved the Foreign Agents Registration Act, an 80-year-old law requiring the disclosure of foreign influence campaigns in the United States.

“When I saw it was a FARA thing, it didn’t really interest me,” said the potential juror, who works in the health and human services industry.

By day’s end, he was among 35 potential jurors who’d been deemed qualified for Craig’s trial.

Wednesday’s winnowing of prospective jurors set the stage for prosecutors and Craig’s defense to further examine the pool Thursday, as the two sides prepare to make their case to a panel of 12. Opening statements are expected to follow.

On Wednesday, there were lawyers, consultants, at least one teacher, an anthropologist and a political consultant, all facing the possibility of serving on the jury that will weigh the government’s evidence against Craig.

Craig was charged in April with deceiving the Justice Department about his work for Ukraine in 2012, when he was a partner at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. His case had been referred by the special counsel’s office to the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan, but career prosecutors in Washington ultimately accused him of misleading the Justice Department to avoid registering as a foreign agent.

Several prospective jurors were asked not only about their thoughts on the special counsel’s investigation but also Paul Manafort, who helped arrange for the Russia-backed government of Ukraine to hire Skadden. Manafort, a longtime Republican political consultant and former chairman of the Trump campaign, was convicted last year on financial fraud charges linked to his past work for Ukraine, in the first trial win for the special counsel’s team.

Facing questions about Manafort on Wednesday, the prospective juror in the health services industry said, “I hold his work in contempt, that’s all.”

In Wednesday’s pool of potential jurors, the backgrounds varied widely, but many shared a common trait: news junkie.

A lawyer described a vigorous news diet that included newspapers and occasional cable news viewing. “I grew up in a household that got hard copy papers,” the lawyer said. “So I’m fairly plugged in.”

One woman who passed into the pool of 35 would-be jurors described herself as an avid viewer of MSNBC. When asked whether he could refrain from tuning in if ultimately seated on Craig’s jury, she replied, “It would be hard, but I would not watch.”

Robert Mueller, former special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., U.S., on July 24.

Another woman, who said she was in the “cyber field,” claimed to have read from “cover to cover” the 448-page report Robert Mueller’s office prepared on its two-year investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. “I have a high regard for Robert Mueller and the integrity of that office,” the woman said.

For Jackson, the response raised the question: Would she favor the prosecution if she knew Craig’s case arose out of Mueller’s investigation?

“Yes,” the prospective juror said.

Would you be able to set aside your view of the special counsel’s office?

“No,” the juror said. “I don’t think so.”

The prospective juror was asked to leave the courtroom, and she was excused from the jury pool.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

Wednesday’s court action was a redo of a process that began Monday but was promptly scrapped. Between the end of Monday’s proceeding and Tuesday morning, the Justice Department raised concerns about whether the closed-door approach to juror selection infringed on Craig’s constitutional right to receive a fair trial.

Craig’s defense team formally objected Tuesday to the jury selection process, and so the second day of Craig’s trial ended with the judge agreeing to start the jury selection process from scratch.

At the end of Wednesday’s proceedings, Jackson remarked that the trial was now in the same place it was two days earlier.

“It feels like five years ago,” Jackson said, “but it was only Monday.”

 

Read more:

‘Are You Telling Me We Need to Start Over?’ How Greg Craig’s Trial Hit a Snag

Quinn’s William Burck Is Now a Registered ‘Foreign Agent’ for Kuwaiti Contractor

Registering as a ‘Foreign Agent’? Why Law Firms and Lobby Shops Might Demur.

Manafort Judge Says Foreign Lobbying Law Is No ‘Pesky Regulation’

The Curious Case of Joe Lieberman’s Work as a Lobbyist Who Isn’t ‘Advocating’

Greg Craig, Defiant After Lobbying Charges, Will Plead Not Guilty