U.S. vs Guy Reffitt

 

(CNN) — The first trial for a January 6 US Capitol attack defendant won't have any members of the public, media or even the wife of the defendant in the courtroom to witness much of the proceedings, a federal judge decided on Monday.

Judge Dabney Friedrich decided not to allow any members of the public to witness the evidence presentation in person at the historic trial that's expected to last more than a week.  A few are being allowed to watch jury selection, which began Monday, and opening statements.
...
Friedrich cited space concerns due to stringent coronavirus protocols at the federal courthouse in Washington, DC, designed to ensure that jurors and witnesses at trials are spread out from one another.

Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

IANAL, but the text of the 6th amendment seems pretty plain to me:

• speedy and public trial — Refitt has been in the pokey nearly a year so 'speedy' this isn't, and it isn't going to be 'public', either, if the public won't be permitted to even see the 'evidence'.
• impartial jury — that hasn't happened in a federal court in well over a half-century.
• if the U.S. federal government's Judicial branch can't provide an appropriate venue for a trial, one that comports with the requirements of the Constitution, how is that an excuse for ignoring those Constitutional requirements?

It almost goes without saying that the defendant will not be permitted 'discovery' of the estimated 14,000 hours of video of the so-called insurrection.  These flaws alone are enough to ensure any conviction is overturned on appeal by anything like a fair court.

Then there's this: if such blatant injustice turns out to be the trigger for civil war, will Judge Dabney Friedrich object when his trial is likewise held in secret?  The Golden Rule tells us that how you treat others is how you, yourself, wish to be treated, so the judge can't have any objection to that, could he?

Will a Republican House and a Republican Senate, if that's the outcome of the 2022 election, have the intestinal fortitude to impeach and convict jurists like Friedrich, ensuring they never service (pun intended) the American people ever again?  Don't bet on it.