Alex Jones makes threat to name juror in Stone case

On Thursday, the first day of political consultant Roger Stone’s trial in federal court in Washington on charges of false statements and witness tampering, Judge Amy Berman Jackson cautioned people in the courtroom against releasing jurors’ names.

But conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was undeterred,

first reported. Ignoring her warning, Jones broadcast on his show the name and face of an individual whom he believed had been seated on Stone’s jury, calling the person an anti-Trump ‘‘minion’’ and launching a flurry of witness tampering and obstruction of justice allegations.

Although Jones held up a photograph of a person who had no connection to the Stone trial, legal experts said the effect was the same as if the person had been a juror.

Jury tampering is an intentional effort to sway a juror’s opinion or decision in a case by communicating with him or her either directly or indirectly through an improper channel, outside legal arguments and evidence presented in court.

It doesn’t matter whether he revealed the right or wrong name or image, according to Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York. His actions were not about a particular juror but aimed at intimidating the others on the jury, she said. ‘‘It’s really about protecting integrity of the process. Jurors must be impartial and judges work to ensure that.’’

Rocah said Jones was sending a message: ‘‘You’re going to face the wrath of Alex Jones and his extremist following,’’ urging them to harass any juror who convicts his friend of lying to investigators, obstruction of justice and witness tampering. She continued, concluding that Jones had crossed into criminal territory: ‘‘If I were a juror, I might be intimidated by it.’’

Federal prosecutors rarely file jury tampering charges. To successfully prosecute one, the US attorney would have to prove the purpose of the communication was to influence the jurors’ opinions and that they heard it.

In every criminal case, jurors are concerned about physical safety and being pulled into the public spotlight, Harry Sandick, a partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and former federal prosecutor, told

he called a threat to publicise a jurors’ name ‘‘destructive to the process.’’

Here, though, he said it would be a stretch for the Justice Department to pursue charges against Jones.

Jackson could issue a warning against Stone – though she was unsuccessful in controlling his public commentary about the case even after issuing a gag order.

But Jones is not a part of the proceeding and has a constitutional right to speak about the trial and criticise Jackson, who he’s called ‘‘a fraud.’’

‘‘Jones is probably not what the authors of the First Amendment had in mind, but he’s still protected by it,’’ Sandick said.