Day Overview Volume II covers the second day of individual jury voir dire in US v. Farah, et al. (Trial 1), pages 303–629, beginning at 8:56 a.m. and adjourning at 5:13 p.m. The court questioned prospective jurors 22 through 51 (with some gaps for hardship excusals). Notable events: defense counsel raised a late-discovery disclosure issue at the outset, which the court deferred; Kara Lomen's identity as a key witness was confirmed on the record by AUSA Thompson, who identified her as 'the executive director of Partners in Nutrition, former executive director'; multiple jurors were excused for cause based on preconceived guilt opinions (Jurors 29, 32, 36, 37, 41, 46) or close connections to the programs and witnesses; one juror (Juror 25) triggered a contested cause motion due to his social media connection to Kara Lomen's ex-husband — denied by the court; and the court announced that opening statements would not begin before Monday regardless of when jury selection concluded. A recurring and strategically important theme throughout the day was the court's extensive questioning of jurors about their personal experiences receiving COVID-era meal pickups — in nearly every instance jurors confirmed they were not required to show ID, prove eligibility, or fill out forms, directly corroborating the defense's legitimate-program-operation narrative.
Government Strategy This volume contains no substantive witness testimony. The government's activity was limited to participation in individual voir dire of prospective jurors. The government's key strategic moves were: (1) flagging Kara Lomen as a witness whose name 'will come up a lot' regardless of whether she takes the stand, signaling her centrality to the government's narrative; (2) resisting for-cause challenges on jurors the government viewed as favorable (e.g., Juror 27, who disclosed a pro-law-enforcement lean, was defended by the government); (3) affirmatively seeking to exclude a juror whose family had actually received food from Feeding Our Future (Juror 46), apparently fearing sympathy for the program's beneficiaries; and (4) raising late discovery disclosures from the prior evening as a scheduling issue, which the court deferred to post-jury-selection. The government accepted without objection multiple cause strikes on jurors with preconceived guilt opinions.
Strategic Notes for Defense Counsel - Kara Lomen's identity and centrality were confirmed on the record by AUSA Thompson in this very volume. Thompson stated that 'whether or not she takes the stand, Kara Lomen's name will come up a lot.' This confirms she is a witness-in-waiting and central to the government's case, even if not called. Defense counsel must be prepared for her name to permeate the trial through documents and agent testimony even in her absence. She is the Executive Director of Partners in Nutrition, a private sponsor — not an MDE employee.
- Multiple prospective jurors — independently and without prompting — described COVID-era school meal pickups in which they confirmed: no ID required, no forms to fill out, no proof of eligibility needed, food given to whoever showed up. These admissions from non-party civilians directly support the defense argument that non-congregate, open-access meal distribution was normal, expected, and legitimate under pandemic operations. Defense counsel should use these jury pool responses as a resource to frame opening statements and expert testimony about program structure.
- The government struck Juror 46 — whose family had personally received food from Feeding Our Future during COVID — suggesting the government is acutely aware that actual FOF beneficiaries make unsympathetic jurors for the prosecution. Defense counsel should seek out jurors with positive food-program experiences, particularly those who received meals during COVID without having to document eligibility.
- Defense teams conducted real-time social media searches on jurors during voir dire. At least one juror (Juror 43) was identified via Facebook post as having food-program adjacent sympathies. defense counsel's team should have a designated person running parallel social media checks on every prospective juror who is retained.
- The late-discovery issue raised on day 2 of voir dire (data files produced the prior evening) was never fully resolved on this record. Defense counsel should investigate whether this discovery was ever formally addressed, what the materials were, and whether any Brady/Giglio argument survived. The court's deferral to post-selection created a record gap that warrants follow-up review of subsequent motion practice.
Legal Rulings & Objections ⚖ Late discovery disclosure: Defense counsel Goetz raised that additional discovery (data files, TIFF files, native image files) had been produced the prior evening. He moved for relief/continuance. The court deferred the issue to after jury selection was complete, stating it needed more information about what was disclosed and what relief was necessary. — This preserved the record on the late disclosure. Defense counsel should check what this discovery was, whether it was ever fully addressed, and whether any prejudice argument survives. The court's deferral does not waive the issue. [p. 307] ⚖ Prayer/scheduling accommodation: Defense counsel Goetz requested that the trial schedule accommodate the midday Dhuhr prayer (1:20 p.m.) for Muslim defendants and/or counsel. The court granted a standing lunch break from 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. each trial day. — Establishes the court's approach to religious accommodations. Relevant to atmosphere and jury perception of defendants. Defense counsel should confirm this accommodation continued throughout trial. [p. 306-307] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 25 (connection to Kara Lomen's ex-husband via social media and prior employment) — DENIED. Court found no bias, characterized his experiences as non-disqualifying. Court ordered him to stop following the ex-husband's social media feed. — Court's threshold for bias based on indirect connections to witnesses is high. Juror 25, if seated, would have known Kara Lomen's ex-husband professionally and was still following him on Twitter at the time of voir dire. This ruling warrants scrutiny on appeal if this juror was ultimately seated and Lomen's role was significant at trial. [p. 377-389] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 27 (disclosed tendency to credit law enforcement testimony over lay testimony) — DENIED after rehabilitation. Court found him 'thoughtful and willing to examine his own biases.' — Defense (Sapone) correctly identified that in a case dominated by law enforcement witnesses vs. lay defense witnesses, this juror's admitted pro-law-enforcement lean was not sufficiently cured by yes/no rehabilitation answers. The denial over Sapone's objection should be noted for appellate review if this juror was seated. [p. 415-417] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 29 (stated opinion that defendants were 'guilty' based on news) — GRANTED without objection from government. — The standard for excusing jurors with preformed guilt opinions was applied consistently throughout the day. [p. 437-438] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 32 (characterized defendants as people who 'took advantage of COVID pandemic'; believed arrest implies guilt) — GRANTED on court's own initiative, no objection. — Court acted appropriately. The juror's framing of pandemic-era benefit programs as inherently suspicious is the exact cognitive predisposition the defense needs to identify and challenge in future jury pools. [p. 456-457] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 34 (husband on board of Every Meal, a competing children's food nonprofit; admitted this case caused donation decreases to Every Meal; admitted concern about impact of conviction on nonprofits) — GRANTED (Sapone motion, no objection). — Legitimate basis. The juror's husband sat on the board of an organization that experienced direct competitive harm reputationally from this case. This is the type of institutional bias that is hard to rehabilitate. [p. 491-492] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 36 (stated 'guilty' opinion, believed fraud occurred based on news) — GRANTED without objection. — Pattern consistent across multiple jurors: news saturation in the Twin Cities area created significant preformed opinions. Defense should continue requesting thorough inquiry into media exposure in future related trials. [p. 496-497] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 37 (15-year school district employee; coworker's neighbor arrested in this case; said she'd have 'a hard time being unbiased in a program that's taking money from children in public schools') — GRANTED without objection. Note: Juror also recognized Deb Ross-Coen by name from school food service emails. — Strategically important: Juror 37's recognition of Deb Ross-Coen as a food service contact at the school district indicates Ross-Coen (likely an MDE or school district food program official) is a named witness or involved party. Her name should be researched for Trial 1 witness lists. [p. 497-502] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 41 (nutrition services worker at elementary school, familiar with summer feeding program rules; stated 'it does seem like there has been some fraud') — GRANTED. Government agreed rehabilitation was undesirable given proximity to the programs. — Even a juror who expressed belief in the judicial system and framed her views carefully was removed when she had program familiarity and a tentative guilt view. Government's candor here — acknowledging they would not want this juror rehabilitated — confirms they were managing the jury pool carefully. [p. 540-542] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 43 (believed charged persons are charged 'for a reason'; shared Lutheran church food shelf post on Facebook) — DENIED. Court took juror at his word after rehabilitation. — Defense (Sapone) did opposition research during voir dire, finding the juror's Facebook post. This technique — checking public social media during live voir dire — was effective at surfacing food-program-adjacent connections. Sapone's argument that rehabilitation answers were performative rather than genuine is compelling and warrants renewed scrutiny on appeal if this juror was seated. [p. 570-391] ⚖ For-cause challenge to Juror 46 (family received food from Feeding Our Future during COVID; mother was interviewed by a reporter about receiving food) — GRANTED on government's motion. — Critically, the government moved to strike a juror whose family had actually received food from Feeding Our Future. The government did not want actual beneficiaries of FOF's programs on the jury, likely fearing sympathy. This confirms the government understood that real-world beneficiaries could complicate the fraud narrative. [p. 618-632] ⚖ Court announced openings would not occur before Monday regardless of when jury selection concluded. Court also told counsel the week of the anticipated trial end (referencing June 3rd as a potential outer limit for a particular juror's travel). — Confirms the trial timeline. Openings were to begin Monday, April 29, 2024. [p. 628] Prior Defense Performance No witnesses testified on the merits in this volume. Defense performance is assessed on voir dire strategy only. Overall, the defense team was active and sophisticated. Ed Sapone (Nur) conducted real-time social media research on prospective jurors during voir dire and identified at least one Facebook post (Juror 43) that was potentially disqualifying — this is best practice and Defense counsel should continue it. Patrick Cotter and Steve Schleicher led several successful cause challenges. The contested denial on Juror 27 (pro-law-enforcement lean) represents a missed opportunity: Sapone's argument was legally sound but the objection was not pressed hard enough, and no record was made of what specific law enforcement testimony was anticipated to controvert lay testimony. On the Juror 25/Kara Lomen connection, defense counsel Cotter and Schleicher made a strong cause motion, but the court denied it. The government's disclosure that Lomen was divorced from the juror's ex-coworker undermined the motion somewhat. The defense's failure to press harder on the COVID-era meal pickup testimony is a minor missed opportunity — multiple jurors confirmed they never had to show ID or prove eligibility to receive meals during COVID, and these admissions were not aggregated into any record-building question for the defense theory. That said, the court's own questions drew out this testimony organically.