I know it’s not the Bundys, or even Americans, but it’s always nice to see that these types of crazies aren’t always domestic.
Interesting developments in the trial yesterday and today. In their third day of deliberations, one juror submitted a question asking “Can a juror, a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, who opens their remarks in deliberations by staying, ‘I am very biased…’ be considered an impartial judge in this case?” Today, the judge decided to dismiss the juror and replace him with an alternate, which means the jury must start over from scratch in their deliberations.
Jurors also submitted a question asking ""If we are able to agree on a verdict for 3 of the defendants, but are at a standoff for the others, does our decision for the three stand? Or does this become a mistrial for all the defendants?‘’ The judge didn’t really answer this one, and told them to keep deliberating. I guess this question is now moot after the juror dismissal, but it does point to the case not ending in a slam-dunk conviction.
How in the hell did a former BLM employee make it onto the jury in the first place?
The judge questioned him during jury selection, and he said he worked as a ranch tech and firefighter for four years over 20 years ago. He told the judge he could act impartially, so not a big surprise she didn’t dismiss him then. But it is a head-scratcher why the defense attorneys let him stay. Angling for appeal?
He told the attorneys that he could be unbiased, that it would not affect his ability to make a decision. More importantly, a juror, after having heard all the testimony, should ultimately have become biased just on the basis of the evidence. One can, at least in theory, be fair and biased.
Guess their case wasn’t as ironclad as the Feds had hoped. Or the jury didn’t grasp their purpose.
Sounds like “jury nullification” to me.
The jury wants to encourage more of that sort of militia nuttery I expect.
Yes, I thought of that, too. It’s the right (har) part of the state for it. I am disappointed in this verdict.
Unbelievable. I just…can’t grok this.
It wasn’t a conspiracy? They all just showed up at the same time by some random coincidence?
The problem is the way it was charged. They were charged with conspiracy to impede federal officers, not with just simply impeding them. The prosecution had to prove that they all got together with the intent to impede federal officers and, as much as I hate to say it, they didn’t really prove that.
During the trial, the idea of adverse possession did come up and it’s a simple logical leap to conclude that if they intended to hold possession of the refuge for a number of years in order to claim adverse possession, federal employees would have been impeded. But that would still only mean impeding federal officers would have been a side effect, not the goal of the conspiracy.
From what I read, the prosecution only mentioned that logical leap once during cross exam of Ammon while the defendants said several times that they didn’t give any thought to the employees, they were there to protest the government as a whole.
And you know what? I actually believe them. I don’t think they took over the refuge in order to interfere with the employees who worked there. I think they took it over to hold it as ransom for the Hammonds and perhaps secretly to keep the Bundys from being arrested for the Bunkerville indictment which I believe they knew was coming.
I think the government would have won if they had gone straight for the impeding charge and skipped the conspiracy.
On the bright side, the Bundy brothers will now be sent to Nevada to face charges for Bunkerville. Oregon would have been a nice icing on the cake, but Nevada is the real deal. The charges are much more serious, the evidence much more solid and the judges much less willing to put up with any bullshit.
Perhaps one can infer that their effort was so scattershot and inept that “conspiracy” was not deemed appropriate.
Meanwhile, Ammonia’s attorney was wrestled to the floor by 5 US marshalls after his livid insistence that his client was free to go (ignoring that there is still a case pending in Nevada).
I hope so
this verdict is unreal, why weren’t they charged with vandalism? surely we all SAW them do that - right on camera, boasting about it all over the internet :mad:
I think one of them pleaded guilty to fucking up the surveillance cameras a few months back.
This is a good and nuanced explanation of what happened. Wouldn’t be the first time or sadly, the last, when overcharging by a prosecutor got him/her into trouble.
What a dreadful shame, though. This verdict is going to embolden more than a few militia types.
I think there should be a civil case to recover the $6.3 million costs. That one should be easier to win.
There are other people going to trial in February. I think Sean Anderson is charged with using a bulldozer to dig a trench through a Native American artifact site.
As for the other general vandalism stuff, my guess is that they couldn’t pin any of it on a certain person. I’d like to see them all charged for every stain on the carpet, for accessing government computers, for stealing files, for trespassing, for threats, for intimidation etc etc. Problem is, who do you charge?
Yeah, Scott Willingham (who is a real psycho) pled guilty to theft of the cameras. Ryan Bundy should have been found guilty of aiding and abetting today, but wasn’t.
What the fuckety fucking fuck.
He may be a psycho, but this guy is the one who creeps me out. And he just walked.
Truly sickening outcome.