Loading...
Market
How will this court ruling influence future judicial decisions on bias claims?
5
Thomas Webster•New York City•Donald Trump•Gregory Katsas•Neomi Rao•Barack Obama•Webster•Joe Biden•Department of Justice
Resolution / Starting Odds
Increase in bias claims being upheld • 33%
Decrease in bias claims being upheld • 33%
No significant change in handling bias claims • 34%
Legal reviews and subsequent court rulings
Story
Appeals Court Upholds Thomas Webster's Conviction, Rejects Bias Claim
May 28, 2024, 03:18 PM
A federal appeals court has unanimously rejected an appeal by Thomas Webster, a former New York City police officer, who argued that his conviction related to the January 6 Capitol riots should be overturned due to alleged juror bias. The three-judge panel, which included two appointees of former President Donald Trump, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, and one appointee of former President Barack Obama, ruled that the liberal political leanings of Washington, D.C. do not inherently bias juries against January 6 defendants. Webster's defense had claimed that the jury pool was prejudiced because of the district's overwhelming vote for President Joe Biden. The court upheld Webster's conviction, siding with the Department of Justice and affirming that the political composition of the jury pool does not constitute grounds for a change of venue or a new trial.
View original story
Similar markets
Decisions perceived as less partisan • 33%
No noticeable impact on decisions • 33%
Increased scrutiny and public dissent on decisions • 34%
Increase in similar bans • 33%
Decrease in similar bans • 33%
No significant change • 34%
Positive impact • 33%
No significant impact • 33%
Negative impact • 34%
Significantly more claims filed • 25%
No change in number of claims • 25%
Fewer claims due to deterrent effect • 25%
More settlements out of court • 25%
Other organizations adopt more inclusive policies • 33%
No significant change in other organizations • 33%
Other organizations adopt more restrictive policies • 34%
Strengthened political position • 25%
Weakened political position • 25%
No significant change • 25%
Increased public scrutiny • 25%
Increase in diversity • 33%
Decrease in diversity • 33%
No significant change • 34%
Further appeals in higher courts • 25%
No further legal actions • 25%
Settlement or mediation efforts initiated • 25%
New related lawsuits filed • 25%
Media scrutiny increases • 33%
Media scrutiny decreases • 33%
No significant change in media scrutiny • 34%
Rules are upheld • 33%
Rules are partially struck down • 34%
Rules are entirely struck down • 33%
Stricter Interpretations • 25%
Broader Interpretations • 25%
No Change in Interpretation • 25%
Case-Specific Interpretations • 25%