I would think that had they been charged individually, they would have been convicted. Do we have any legal folks here?
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?
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.
LA Times article here
[How the government lost its case against the Oregon occupiers](How the government lost its case against the Oregon occupiers)
No.
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?
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.
That is what I believe occurred.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I guess the article linked to in the OP is pretty misleading, then. It said:
(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, but it mentions 18 USC § 372, not 18 USC § 930.
I don’t have that, but the jury instructions (PDF) are helpful. Here’s a summary of the instructions regarding the firearms charge from here:
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
I’m a bit more puzzled now by the verdict in Count Four. The elements there were:
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?
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:
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*.