On Tuesday, 17 February 2026, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman declared a mistrial in a high-profile federal case in Fort Worth after a defense attorney wore a T‑shirt bearing civil‑rights imagery during jury selection. The declaration came only hours after voir dire began in a trial against nine defendants accused in a 4 July protest at an ICE facility near Fort Worth. Judge Pittman said the shirt — which displayed leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Shirley Chisholm and images of 1960s protests — risked sending a political message that could bias jurors. The judge ordered the trial to restart with a new jury panel on Monday at 9:00 a.m.
Key Takeaways
Federal judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee, declared a mistrial on 17 February 2026 during jury selection in Fort Worth after a defense lawyer wore a civil‑rights themed T‑shirt.
Nine defendants face charges tied to a demonstration at an ICE detention facility on 4 July; prosecutors describe the incident as coordinated and allege property damage and that one person shot and wounded an officer.
About 75 potential jurors had assembled for voir dire when the judge halted proceedings; several prospective jurors were excused after the mistrial was declared.
The judge said the defense attorney, MarQuetta Clayton, displayed a poster not previously submitted to the court and suggested the T‑shirt could equate the defendants’ conduct with the civil‑rights movement.
Clayton is a candidate for a county judgeship in Texas and early voting began in her jurisdiction on the same Tuesday, a fact noted during courtroom exchanges.
Pittman has issued prior pretrial sanctions in this case, including fines imposed in December 2025 and disputes over counsel qualifications and discovery motions.
The government has framed the prosecution as the first use of terrorism charges against those it labels as an “antifa” cell in North Texas, raising questions about precedent for protest‑related prosecutions.
Background
The defendants were charged after a 4 July demonstration at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility near Fort Worth in which protesters set off fireworks in solidarity with detainees and, prosecutors say, committed property damage. Court filings allege graffiti on a guard shack and vehicles, slashed tires on a government vehicle, destruction of a security camera and that one protester shot and wounded a police officer at the scene. Those allegations underpin an uncommon decision by prosecutors to bring terrorism‑related counts tied to a loosely defined collection of anti‑fascist activists often described as “antifa.”
The term “antifa” is not an organized group with membership rolls but an umbrella label for activists who oppose fascism and far‑right groups, complicating efforts to treat it as a discrete criminal organization. The Trump administration signaled a policy focus on antifa in recent years; legal observers have warned the current case could set a precedent for applying terrorism statutes to protest activity. Pretrial litigation in this matter has already been contentious: the court sanctioned three defense lawyers in December 2025, questioned another counsel’s residency, and saw representation change when George Lobb withdrew and MarQuetta Clayton joined the defense team.
Main Event
Jury selection began on the morning of 17 February 2026 in downtown Fort Worth, with roughly 75 prospective jurors assembled for voir dire. MarQuetta Clayton, representing one defendant, wore a black blazer with a visible T‑shirt beneath it that included photographic images of civil‑rights era leaders and demonstrations. Clayton conducted about 20 minutes of questioning when Judge Pittman interrupted proceedings, saying he had only then noticed the shirt’s imagery and concluded it could influence jurors.
Pittman told the courtroom he believed the shirt conveyed a political message that might equate the defendants’ alleged acts with the civil‑rights movement, and he suggested the defense might have worn it intentionally. The judge also criticized Clayton for displaying a poster to potential jurors that had not been submitted to the court clinic or opposing counsel for review, saying that procedural rules had been breached.
After declaring a mistrial, Pittman said, “I don’t think I have any choice but to declare a mistrial,” and set a new trial date, ordering the panel process to begin again on Monday at 9:00 a.m. Defense counsel collectively said they did not believe a mistrial was necessary and questioned whether prospective jurors had in fact seen the shirt, arguing that voir dire could root out bias. The lead federal prosecutor, Shawn Smith, declined to take a position on whether a mistrial was warranted, saying he had not previously encountered a comparable situation.
Analysis & Implications
The immediate legal consequence is procedural: the government must begin jury selection anew, at least temporarily delaying a trial that carries high political and legal stakes. A fresh panel could alter the trial’s dynamics depending on the composition of jurors and how the court manages later questions about potential bias. Repeated voir dire and publicity surrounding the mistrial may make it harder to seat an impartial jury in a community where the case has already attracted attention.
Substantively, the case tests how courts balance courtroom decorum and attorney conduct against First Amendment protections. Judges have discretion to control courtroom decor, but critics caution that an expansive view of political messaging could chill courtroom advocacy and defense strategies—especially when attorneys are also public figures or candidates. Clayton’s simultaneous candidacy for county judge and the coincidence of early voting raised concerns about political optics, though there is no evidence linking her campaign to courtroom choices.
On the broader legal front, this prosecution is notable for the Justice Department’s use of terrorism‑style charges connected to demonstrators identified by prosecutors as an “antifa cell.” If convictions follow, scholars warn the case could encourage prosecutors to pursue severe charges in future protests; conversely, a dismissal or acquittal could signal judicial resistance to stretching terrorism statutes to encompass localized protest damage. The outcome will likely inform both prosecutorial charging decisions and defense strategies in politically charged protest cases around the country.
Comparison & Data
Alleged Act (4 July)
Prosecutors’ Claim / Relevance
Setting off fireworks
Shown as solidarity with detainees; part of conduct timeline
Graffiti on guard shack and vehicles
Property damage alleged; supports vandalism and coordination claims
Slashing tires on a government vehicle
Property destruction cited as criminal act during protest
Destruction of a security camera
Alleged effort to hamper identification and surveillance
One person shot and wounded an officer
Alleged violent escalation cited in terrorism‑related charges
The table summarizes key allegations from prosecutors’ filings; defense counsel disputes characterization and intent in multiple respects. Quantitatively, nine defendants were indicted and roughly 75 potential jurors were present for the initial voir dire session before the mistrial. Prior sanctions and discovery disputes in December 2025 underscore how pretrial tensions have already shaped litigation strategy on both sides.
Reactions & Quotes
Reactions ranged from courtroom officials to prospective jurors and defendants’ supporters outside the courthouse. Some dismissed jurors said they had not noticed the shirt and would not have been influenced, while family members and supporters described the judge’s action as disproportionate.
“I don’t think I have any choice but to declare a mistrial.”
Judge Mark Pittman (U.S. District Court)
Judge Pittman framed the decision as necessary to preserve impartiality and later decried partisan division in public remarks, calling the situation “absolutely disgusting” and urging a reduction in political anger.
“I did not see the shirt, and it would not have influenced my decision‑making.”
Harrison Stables, prospective juror
Stables was among those dismissed after the mistrial and later told reporters he had not noticed the imagery when called to the panel.
“I struggle to understand how this could be fair or reasonable in this judicial environment.”
Lydia Koza, partner of defendant Autumn Hill
Supporters and family members gathered outside the courthouse, expressing frustration and concern about the fairness and optics of the court’s decision.
Unconfirmed
Whether the majority of the approximately 75 prospective jurors actually noticed the T‑shirt during voir dire remains disputed and unverified beyond individual statements.
There is no independent, court‑verified public evidence that the T‑shirt was worn intentionally to sway jurors for political reasons; the judge offered that as a possibility.
Prosecutors’ allegation that one protester shot and wounded an officer is drawn from court filings; the facts around that shooting and whether charges directly tied to it will be proved at trial remain to be established in court.
Bottom Line
The mistrial underscores how courtroom conduct and symbolic imagery can materially affect high‑stakes prosecutions, particularly those intertwined with national political debates over protest and public order. For the government, restarting jury selection is a delay that may reshape the trial’s course; for the defense, the episode raises concerns about courtroom fairness and the risk of heightened scrutiny on advocacy choices.
Observers should watch the next voir dire process on Monday at 9:00 a.m., any renewed motions about juror screening, and whether the government adjusts its charging or trial strategy in response to publicity and judicial rulings. The wider legal question — whether terrorism statutes can be properly applied to protest‑related conduct labeled as antifa activity — remains unresolved and could have implications for future prosecutions of demonstrations nationwide.
Sources
The Guardian — national news report summarizing court proceedings and local reporting
