# Jury finds all Oregon standoff defendants not guilty of federal conspiracy, gun charges **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 28, 2016, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895 "2016-10-28T00:20:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/41 "2016-10-29T14:06:12Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > So the conspiracy charge should be dropped, but murder should still be upheld. > > And so the Bundy’s should be found guilty of all the other shit they did. They didn’t conspire to prevent federal workers from doing their jobs, but they did illegally occupy federal property holding it with firearms (among a half-dozen or so other easily proven charges) . I would think that had they been charged individually, they would have been convicted. Do we have any legal folks here? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/42 "2016-10-29T17:01:20Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Actually, if they’re on a jury, they sort of are. Ok. They just aren’t compelled to act in a predetermined way then. And who can complain? If the state doesn’t faithfully execute its obligations why should the citizenry? ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/43 "2016-10-29T20:22:15Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Ok. They just aren’t compelled to act in a predetermined way then. And who can complain? If the state doesn’t faithfully execute its obligations why should the citizenry? What obligations did the state not execute? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/44 "2016-10-29T21:43:54Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > What obligations did the state not execute? On a daily basis the state fails to enforce its laws. I don’t see how it’s newsworthy when the citizenry follow that example. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/45 "2016-10-29T21:50:43Z")
LA Times article here [How the government lost its case against the Oregon occupiers](How the government lost its case against the Oregon occupiers) ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/46 "2016-10-29T23:11:02Z")
> [@astro](#): > > LA Times article here [Fixed link](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-malheur-legal-defense-20161028-story.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/47 "2016-10-29T23:54:06Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#): > > Does that violate any legal standard? Could a mistrial be declared based on that? No. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/48 "2016-10-30T02:11:02Z")
> [@Finagle](#): > > Well, there’s actual video of these people with guns on the reservation and videos of them up on telephone poles tampering with government property. One of them was spotted driving a government vehicle to the grocery store which certainly sounds like theft to me. So either the prosecution was amazingly incompetent or overconfident (not impossible), or the jury ignored some pretty hard evidence, at least of the lesser charges. OK, let’s look at what you’ve just said, then. There was actual video of those people with guns on the reservation. Every crime has certain elements that must be proved in order to convict. So the question to ask is: what was the crime that you believe was unambiguously shown by the video? Specifically, what were the elements of the crime? In this case, they were charged with violating 18 USC § 930 _et seq_, knowingly possessing a firearm in a federal facility \*with the intent that the firearm be used in the commission of the crime of Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States \*. Without listing all the elements of that crime, there should be three that leap out at you: (1) possession of firearms; (2) in a federal facility; (3) with the intent to use the firearm in a conspiracy to impede federal officials. You’re right that the video is good evidence of (1) and (2). But it doesn’t prove (3). The defendants testified, and the jury apparently believed, that they had no intent to impede federal officials. They acknowledge that officials were impeded because of what they did, but they said that was not their intent. Because the jury believed them, the government could not secure a conviction. And the video doesn’t change that. Do you see why now? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/49 "2016-10-30T02:14:01Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > So the conspiracy charge should be dropped, but murder should still be upheld. > > And so the Bundy’s should be found guilty of all the other shit they did. They didn’t conspire to prevent federal workers from doing their jobs, but they did illegally occupy federal property holding it with firearms (among a half-dozen or so other easily proven charges) . What were they charged with? The problem here is the government chose not to proceed on the lesser charges, so the jury was never given an option to find them guilty of a separate weapons charge. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/50 "2016-10-30T02:23:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem here is the government chose not to proceed on the lesser charges, so the jury was never given an option to find them guilty of a separate weapons charge. That is what I believe occurred. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/51 "2016-10-30T02:33:41Z")
> [@enipla](#): > > So… two guys ‘conspire’ to rob a 7-11. Store clerk gets killed. Prosecutors charge them with conspiracy to kill clerk. Found innocent of that so all other charges dropped. > > Looking for analogies. Do the prosecutors only charge the conspiracy? Most often in the state arena, we find a criminal procedure rule mandates that a defendant be tried in one trial, with a separate count for each offense, when the offenses charged, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, are of the same or similar character, or are based on the same act or transactions, or are two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting part of a common scheme or plan. The failure of prosecutors to also charge the murder might mean that the state is unable to come back in a second trial with the murder charge. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/52 "2016-10-30T02:39:21Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > **Bricker** , what’re your opinions on the trial in general? I did not follow it in detail, but it seems to me on quick review that the AUSA did not let any lesser-included charges reach the jury. The jury also (in my opinion) was influenced by learning of the substantial role played by FBI informants – not just informing but being the key players in pivotal events. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/53 "2016-10-30T02:56:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I did not follow it in detail, but it seems to me on quick review that the AUSA did not let any lesser-included charges reach the jury. The jury also (in my opinion) was influenced by learning of the substantial role played by FBI informants – not just informing but being the key players in pivotal events. Entrapment? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 10:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/54 "2016-10-30T10:31:03Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Entrapment? The intersection of entrapment and conspiracy, perhaps: the defendants were probably predisposed to commit the substantive offenses but there doesn’t seem to be good evidence about a unifying plan specifically to impede officers. If the jury believed that the main actions moving the plan forward came at the behest of the FBI informants, it could only make proving the intent by pointing at the outcome more difficult. ---
**Author:** ![DorkVader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/73ab20/32.png) [@DorkVader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DorkVader)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2016, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/55 "2016-10-30T20:09:53Z")
I haven’t read every post in the thread, and I am not even related to a legal expert, but, I am a “next-door neighbor” sort of, to Portland and more so to Oregon in general. Portland is touted as a liberal town and rightly so, but sometimes Pacific Northwesterners have some different notions of “liberal”. I am not at all surprised that there was acquittal. I know of at least a few liberals who do things that a lot of “back easterners and big city liberals” might be puzzled by. Things like owning a firearm simply for the sake of exercising the right to do so, but would happily give them up if the constitution were changed to eliminate private ownership of firearms. (just the most obvious example I know of, not meant to be a comment on anything relating to the topic at hand). I don’t know the specific reasons, nor can I really speculate on them, for the acquittal, except to say that it’s not really surprising to me. Actually, maybe I can. Oregon is a pretty liberal state, sometimes known as the “Peoples Republic of Oregon”. Once you get away from the coastal area though, Oregon is pretty rural and not _really_ all that liberal. Also, as I said before, Sometimes the people of Portland can do some things you might not expect from a liberal today, almost like the city got stuck in a time warp and is more like 60s or 70s style liberal than the current trend of liberal, less militant and exclusive and bigoted and more relaxed and inclusive and accepting. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/56 "2016-10-31T19:29:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this case, they were charged with violating 18 USC § 930 _et seq_, knowingly possessing a firearm in a federal facility \*with the intent that the firearm be used in the commission of the crime of Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States \*. I guess the article linked to in the OP is pretty misleading, then. It said: > [@](#): > > A federal jury on Thursday found Ammon Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and five co-defendants not guilty of conspiring to prevent federal employees from doing their jobs through intimidation, threat or force during the 41-day occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. > > The Bundy brothers and occupiers Jeff Banta and David Fry **also were found not guilty of having guns in a federal facility. Kenneth Medenbach was found not guilty of stealing government property** , and a hung jury was declared on Ryan Bundy’s charge of theft of FBI surveillance cameras. (bolding mine) That sure made it sound like “having guns in a federal facility” and “stealing government property” were separate charges. But what you’ve said certainly makes it easier to understand how it was possible for the jury to reach this verdict. Do you (or does anyone here) have a link to an official document showing what the charges were? I was able to find [this grand jury indictment](https://www.flashalertnewswire.net/images/news/2016-02/3585/91645/Bundy_Indictment_unsealed.pdf), but it mentions 18 USC § 372, not 18 USC § 930. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/57 "2016-10-31T19:49:37Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > Do you (or does anyone here) have a link to an official document showing what the charges were? I was able to find [this grand jury indictment](https://www.flashalertnewswire.net/images/news/2016-02/3585/91645/Bundy_Indictment_unsealed.pdf), but it mentions 18 USC § 372, not 18 USC § 930. I don’t have that, but the [jury instructions (PDF)](http://media.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/other/2016/10/30/finaljuryinstructions.pdf) are helpful. Here’s a summary of the instructions regarding the firearms charge from [here](http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/how_the_jury_reached_its_verdi.html): > [@](#): > > – The defendant possessed or caused to be present a firearm or dangerous weapon. > > – The defendant acted knowingly. > > – The defendant – or someone the defendant intentionally aided and abetted – acted with the intent that the firearm or other dangerous weapon **be used in the commission of a crime, in this case the conspiracy charged**. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/58 "2016-10-31T21:20:51Z")
Thanks, **TroutMan**. From that PDF, the charges (quoting with some light editing) were: [quote] [ul] [li]In Count One the government charges each of these Defendants with “Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States” in violation of 18 United States Code § 372.[/li][li]In Count Two the government charges Defendants Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, David Lee Fry, and Jeff Wayne Banta with Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in Federal Facilities in violation of 18 United States Code § 930(b).[/li][li]In Count Four the government charges Defendant Kenneth Medenbach with Theft of Government Property in violation of 18 United States Code § 641.[/li][li]In Count Five the government charges Defendant Ryan Bundy with Theft of government Property in violation of 18 United States Code § 641.[/ul][/li][/quote] There is no Count Three. (“not pending in this trial”) Also, it explicitly says > [@](#): > > A defendant may not be found guilty of Count Two unless he or she is found guilty of Count One. I’m a bit more puzzled now by the verdict in Count Four. The elements there were: > [@](#): > > First, the Defendant knowingly stole or converted to Defendant’s use a 2012 Ford F-350 truck, with the intention of depriving the owner of the use or benefit of the Ford F-350 truck; > Second, the Ford F-350 truck belonged to the United States; > and > Third, the value of the truck was more than $1,000.00. Which of those elements was controversial in this case? Was the defense’s argument that Medenbach somehow stole the truck without intending to deprive the owner of the use of the truck? ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2016, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895/59 "2016-11-01T03:15:53Z")
Probably - a perception that “stole with intent to deprive” requires you render it irretrievable, perhaps, combined with a vision that the US government is not deprived of anything they’ll miss if you take one lousy truck? Your guess as good as mine. As to count two, here are subsections (a) and (b) of 18 USC 930: > [@](#): > > (a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. > > (b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. So, Count 2 as charged, under Subsection (b), involves possession of firearms in a federal facility _for the purpose of committing a crime_, which, yes, requires that crime itself to be specified AND proven first. Subsection (a), mere _unauthorized possession_ of firearms in a federal facility would not require that, but then defense would pointedly ask why charge them so when you are accusing them of a crime in the first. This feeds my speculation of a misfired Strategic Pile-On – they wanted to charge them with such violations as would entail the greater penalties (including, as federal firearms felons, less favorable parole provisions, and extracorrectional penalties such as permanently losing their gun rights and - depending on the state - their voting franchise) or else scare them into punking out and asking to cop a plea, thus humiliating themselves as “leaders”. Thing is, sometimes prosecuting attorneys don’t get that some people\* don’t mind risking jail time\*. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jury-finds-all-oregon-standoff-defendants-not-guilty-of-federal-conspiracy-gun-charges/769895.md?page=2)