John Lamb & Andrea Olson-Parker, jury completely silent Morning update, 8-17 ~ J Grady
Printable View
John Lamb & Andrea Olson-Parker, jury completely silent Morning update, 8-17 ~ J Grady
Andrea Olson-Parker, Jury had a question on audio 8-17, no deliberation on Friday
Judge Navarro versus the Jury
Judge Navarro vs. the Jury – Bunkerville Retrial
NAVARRO DECLARED A MISTRIAL IN THE FIRST GO AROUND THIS PAST SPRING WHEN THE JURY COULD NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS DECISION ON MOST OF THE CHARGES.
August 20, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Featured, Opinion
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...Banner-JPG.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...er-678x381.jpg
Judge Navarro vs. the Jury
by Shari Dovale
Judge Gloria Navarro has had a difficult time getting the defendants and spectators to understand that Jury Nullification is, well… a bad thing. She has made her rulings. She has given her orders. She has specifically forbidden nullification from being used in the case of US v. Bundy et. al. She has not, however, said that jury nullification is illegal.
In fact, Nullification is legal. As much as Gloria Navarro would like the jurors to believe otherwise, and that they can be punished for not returning a verdict she approves of, the standard has been in place for nearly 350 years.
A 1670 English ruling in a case against William Penn and William Mead, the jury refused to convict Penn and Mead. This infuriated the panel of judges, who locked up the jury without food or water until they arrived at a “correct” verdict. The jury refused to change their verdict, resulting in Penn and Mead’s acquittal.
The justices were not satisfied. They fined the jurors and sent them to prison until the fine was paid. Edward Bushell was one of the jurors who refused to pay the fine, and remained in prison as a result. He appealed his case, where a higher court overruled his punishment.
The judge’s ruling established the enduring principle that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u.../08/zenger.jpg
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation for which they have been charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is wrongly applied to the defendant.
There have been several noteworthy cases over the years of jury nullification. The most famous case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...on-150x150.jpg
In 1920, The Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol because a majority who did not drink wished to impose their morals on the minority of citizens who did. Juries however nullified alcohol control laws about 60 percent of the time.
The fact that most juries would not convict on alcohol control laws made the use of alcohol widespread throughout Prohibition. Ultimately jury nullification led to the adoption of the 21st amendment repealing Prohibition. If juries had obeyed the judge’s instructions that “the law is the law,” alcohol might still be illegal today.
In 1971, 28 anti-Vietnam war activists were arrested for breaking into and stealing records from a draft office in Camden, NJ. These activists later became known as the “Camden 28”. Though all 28 defendants were initially offered a deal which would ultimately allow them to walk away with minimal penalties or jail time, each of the 28 refused the deal.
Every defendant openly acknowledged their actions before the jury. From the beginning, nullification was seen as the primary defense.
On 20 May 1973 the jury declared each and every one of the defendants Not Guilty on every count against them. This jury exercised its right of nullification to vacate more than 100 charges en masse in this single trial.
Navarro declared a mistrial in the first go around this past spring when the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on most of the charges. The jury later came out to say they did not believe the government had proven their case. However, Judge Navarro and AUSA Myhre have seemed to nearly panic at the thought the jurors may have actually been practicing nullification.In light of the jury having been deadlocked, Judge Navarro changed the rules of the game in the government’s second bite at the apple. She has made it much easier for the prosecution, in that she has ruled nearly 100% in their favor on all major motions presented. She sustains their objections and allows them to present any evidence they feel is necessary.
In contrast, this same evidence cannot, necessarily, be refuted by the defense, as ruled again by Judge Navarro. The defense is limited to a short 40 minute window within their case, though they have been charged with acts as far out as two years later. The defense cannot bring in evidence and witnesses to prove their defense, as Judge Navarro has ruled against this, as well.
In fact, the judge has only allowed the defense to present what is called the “mere presence” defense, in which the defendant basically claims they just happened upon the scene of the crime. This, of course, is no defense in the case of the Bunkerville standoff.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...er-150x150.jpg
The defense has attempted to impeach the government’s witnesses, and again, Judge Navarro does not allow this. She practically stamped her foot and threw a tantrum at the thought of defendant Eric Parker telling his version of events on the witness stand, and ultimately had him removed with his testimony stricken from the record.
Navarro has interpreted the law in such a way that the government cannot be wrong in any of their actions and the average citizen is never allowed to defend themselves against any government agent. Additionally, the average citizen cannot avail themselves of the Constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment, without risk of prosecution by the Federal government, as clearly stated by Judge Gloria Navarro.
We must assume that Judge Navarro is of average, if not above average, intelligence. She must see that her rulings have been perceived as dictatorial. She has told the jury they cannot use the US Constitution and cannot even use their own understanding of the law.
She has allowed the jury to ask questions of all the prosecution witnesses, yet she has disallowed most of the questions to the only defense witness she allowed to take the stand, Scott Drexler.
She continues to poke this bear by telling the jury not to ask some of the questions they have, such as asking about the Bill of Rights, or asking about BLM behavior. They have even been told they do not need to know why the FBI was even involved in this case.
The jury is not allowed to judge the law itself, according to Navarro, only the defendants violation of the law, as she explains it to them. She has gone out of her way to instruct the jury, or make them believe, they have no choice but find these defendants guilty.
But, I would bet that the jury has been paying attention. They have seen the defense get shut down. They have seen the prosecution given favored treatment. They have witnessed the wrath of Judge Navarro. There have been a few jury questions that indicate the jury is not happy.
If it is true that the jury has noticed what a sham this trial has turned into, then Yes, Judge Navarro is correct to be concerned about the verdict.
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...unkerville.jpe
Bunkerville, Nevada 2014
Please support our coverage of your rights.
Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Share this:
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
"Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation for which they have been charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is wrongly applied to the defendant."
The idea is to not ever utter the words "jury nullification" anywhere near the court. Lie to get chosen for the jury, or do what you have to get on the jury. Just be very quiet in jury deliberation and when it comes time to vote, vote not guilty. There will be people trying to twist your arm and ask you a lot of questions to try to change your vote, but YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO REPLY TO ANY OF THAT DISGUSTINGNESS. When your fellow jurors ask you questions after you have cast your vote, do not open your mouth - period. You will be glared at and spurned but you are doing the morally right and legal thing. Hold your ground. It is an ugly game and a big part of the game is try to entice or coerce people to talk when they should remain silent. Silence rules.
REPEAT
Get on the jury
Be quiet throughout
Vote NOT Guilty
and do not open your mouth after you vote, not even if some attorneys physically circle you and gang up on you. By the way, that is against the law but I have seen it done. Just keep your mouth shut.
People who use their real name and post on a lot alternative forums will be web searched and a picture of what they want and what they do not want in a juror will be formed. In fact, I think a person will be ruled out in voir dire even if the person is active to any degree on the web no matter what their opinions are. They want the ignorant poor muddled masses.
I was once upon a time a member of FIJA, Fully Informed Jury Association.
Since then I have never been called for Jury Duty.
I've been on two juries where we used jury nullification and I haven't been called again either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigjon
Being innocent is irrelevant
Bunkerville Retrial – Innocence is Irrelevant
DEFENDANTS HAVE BEEN DENIED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO INFORM JURORS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND BACKGROUND BEHIND THEIR ACTIONS
August 21, 2017 BLM, Constitution, Opinion
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...Banner-JPG.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...ch-678x381.jpg
Bunkerville Retrial – Innocence is Irrelevant
Judge’s rulings impose the rule that evidence of guilt is relevant, evidence of innocence is irrelevant
by Staff Writer
Those who have been watching the court rulings in the Bunkerville (“Bundy”) retrial have been scratching their heads at some of the rulings of Judge Gloria Navarro in the case. The Judge appears to consider any evidence of guilt to be relevant while considering any mitigating evidence or evidence of circumstances to be irrelevant.
Examples of this ‘rule’ in play are numerous. When a BLM agent named Alexandra Burke took the stand for the prosecution, she was allowed to sob wildly and say that she saw a man with a black hat with a white emblem [defendant Eric Parker] standing and pointing a rifle directly at her from over the concrete barrier of the northbound bridge of I-15. No photos or video substantiate Burke’s claim, and most observers believe Burke was lying and probably following instructions to lie from prosecutors. Dozens if not hundreds of sources were taking pictures and video of the area at the time, and there were Nevada Highway Patrolmen on that very bridge at the time (with two rolling dash-cams of the bridge). The troopers who surely would have made an arrest if they saw or heard that Parker was shouldering and pointing his weapon directly at BLM agents to the left.
The known pictures and videos of Officer Burke show her smiling and looking confident during the April 2014 event; not sobbing uncontrollably. (However, defendants were not allowed to introduce these pictures.) And when Eric Parker testified that he looked “up and to the right” on the bridge (not down and to the left where Officer Burke was), Judge Navarro immediately stopped Parker’s testimony and ordered him off the witness stand. Later, Judge Navarro ordered Parker’s entire testimony stricken from the record.
Similarly, defendants have been denied any opportunity to inform jurors of the circumstances and background behind their actions on April 12, 2014. Judge Navarro has held that any evidence that the defendants saw militarized BLM agents pointing weapons at unarmed women and children is deemed irrelevant. Evidence that the government had multiple aircraft above and numerous snipers positioned on nearby mesas has also been deemed irrelevant (despite the fact that government witnesses were allowed to falsely say Parker, Drexler and others held “the high ground”).
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Share this:
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
John Lamb reported jury is in the dark, court house lost power - 5 hrs ago
John Lamb, jury question ~ J Grady
John Lamb, jury is going home for the day. ~ J Grady
Andrea Olson-Parker comments on the jury question ~ J Grady
Government planted jurors are not impartial. What else is new, Navarro has already shown there are no fair trials allowed in her court.
Juror Impartiality Questioned in Bunkerville Retrial
THE JUROR SEEMS VERY HIGHLY PREJUDICED AGAINST FIREARMS. A MISTRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED.
August 21, 2017 BLM, Constitution 1
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...Banner-JPG.jpg
https://redoubtnews.com/wp-content/u...er-678x381.jpg
Juror Impartiality Questioned in Bunkerville Retrial
by Shari Dovale
The Bunkerville Retrial is on Day 23, with three full days of jury deliberations being completed. Today brought the principals together when two jury questions were presented to the court.
The questions centered around one, or more, juror’s beliefs that two other jurors could not be unbiased. The two questionable jurors were identified by numbers, 6 & 9.
Judge Gloria Navarro did not read the questions aloud, presumably to keep the public from hearing the exact wording, as the attorneys had already been given copies of the questions.
The first question, labeled “Juror question #143” referenced juror #6 making statements concerning having had a gun pointed at her sometime in her past. She was later questioned and admitted that she had lost her temper over this issue. “I should have just kept that to myself and never said anything about it,” she told Navarro. “I was angry when I said it.”
During questioning it was revealed that this happened many years ago when she was a child. She also downplayed the actual event to the court, clarifying there was no assault, or other crime, involved.
The defense rightly questioned this later wondering how deeply this has affected her as she is still angry after all these years. They argued that this woman is clearly personalizing it and they question whether or not she can be fair and impartial.
During jury selection, each juror was given a questionnaire that specifically asked if they had ever been the victim of a crime. They were also asked pointed questions on how they felt about firearms. This juror indicated that she had no negative feelings about firearms and had not been the victim of a crime.
When the defense attorneys pointed this out, Judge Navarro seemed to scoff at them for asking this question and said, “I thought that was your case. Pointing a firearm was not a crime.”
The defense team asked for a mistrial based on this information not being disclosed during Voir Dire. Judge Navarro never specifically addressed this later, but did indicate the juror could return to the deliberations.
This is a typical response for Judge Navarro, in that she does not always give a specific ruling or answer, but indicates what should be happening instead. Previous examples are when objections were made and the attorneys would wait for her ruling, until they finally decide to either move on themselves, or reword their questions accordingly.
This juror seems very highly prejudiced against firearms. She does not like them. She gets angry when talking about them. She did this with other jurors. This should have been enough to have her disqualified and replaced by an alternate juror at the very least. It certainly seems appropriate that a mistrial should have been declared.
The second question was labeled “Juror question #144” and was in reference to Juror #9. It was questioned as to whether or not this woman was currently working in the court system, without disclosure, therefore, she may be biased toward the prosecution.
The concern from the complaining juror was that the woman stated 3 different times that she “works” in the court system. She also does not appear willing to continue deliberating, as if she has made up her mind.
While questioning the woman, she stated that she had worked for an administrative judge for 18 years. Though she may have used the present tense of “works”, she actually has not worked in the court system for several years, with other jobs in between.
She was also sent back to the deliberations.
These proceedings did give some indication to what may be happening within the jury room. It seems there is some contention, and possibly arguing between the jurors. There are questions as to whether these two jurors are even willing to discuss or deliberate with other jurors.
This may indicate a mistrial in the near future.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: paypal.me/RedoubtNews
Jury of their peers I see..... :rolleyes:
No due process of law allowed.
Bryan Hyde Perspectives: The Bunkerville trial, what a modern lynching looks like
Posted on August 21, 2017 by Doug Knowles
https://itmattershowyoustand.com/wp-...ps-970x546.jpgFederal Judge Gloria Navarro (left); sign at the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada (right) | Composite image, St. George NewsWritten by Bryan Hyde St George News August 21, 2017
OPINION – Our news cycle was dominated this past week by the birth announcement of a destructive, tantrum-prone love child sired by masked socialist activists and their national socialist counterparts.
While the public’s attention is focused on whether this little monster looks more like its mother or its father, a very real injustice is taking place just out of view.
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-conte..._-1024x560.jpgIn this 2014 AP file photo, rancher Cliven Bundy, flanked by armed supporters, speaks at a protest camp near Bunkerville, Nevada, April 18, 2014. | AP file photo by John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal via AP, St. George News
The highly publicized, and sometimes blatantly distorted, narrative of events at Bundy Ranch three years ago made the Bundys a household name. No matter which version you choose to believe, it’s safe to say that what happened at Bunkerville was likely the most significant act of armed civil disobedience in the past 150 years.
The fact that it was done without bloodshed is rightly considered a miracle by many who were there.
Naturally, the federal government took a very dim view of being backed down by a bunch of mere citizens. Indictments were issued against 19 individuals accused of being part of a criminal conspiracy against the government.
The trial of these defendants was put on hold while brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy, along with five other co-defendants, first stood trial in Oregon for their January 2016 occupation of a wildlife refuge. Federal prosecutors were incensed when the jury in that trial delivered a stunning acquittal of all seven defendants on charges of conspiracy against the federal government.
As the focus shifted to the trial of the first four defendants in Vegas, prosecutors and federal judge Gloria Navarro did everything in their power to tip the scales in favor of the government’s case.
Amazingly, the jury deadlocked and Navarro was forced to declare a mistrial.
What makes this noteworthy is that winning a conviction at the federal level is like shooting fish in a barrel. Well over 90 percent of those charged criminally by the feds end up pleading guilty without going to trial. Of those who go to trial, only a tiny percentage are found not guilty.
This is understandable when considering the virtually unlimited resources and manpower the federal government can bring to bear against someone upon whom its wrath is focused.
With all of these factors working in the government’s favor, convincing a jury that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt shouldn’t be that difficult. Judge Navarro appears to be taking no chances in the current retrial.
She seems to have forgotten that the jury’s job is not to punish on the state’s behalf. It is to see to it that justice is done by ensuring the government proves its case and due process is strictly and fairly observed.
With this in mind, Navarro has turned the concepts of a fair trial and justice on their head by denying the jury essential information that was provided in the first trial. She has
suppressed evidence and testimony that would provide context – what the defendants saw, their intent and state of mind and any explanation of their actions at Bunkerville.
A complete breakdown of the scope of Navarro’s restrictions on the defense can be read here.
Setting aside whatever knee-jerk reaction you may or may not have to hearing the name “Bundy,” does this sound like the actions of an impartial judge who is representing the cause of justice? Or does it sound like the machinations of a vengeful functionary who is determined to win at any cost?
Jurors have been allowed to hear weeks of tedious, redundant and often contradictory testimony from the prosecution. Meanwhile, the defense has been figuratively bound and gagged at every turn.
Even when jurors, trying to get a clearer understanding, have posed specific questions to the judge, she has donned the persona of a slippery used car salesman who simply smiles and says, “Trust me.”
How can the jury render an impartial decision when they are denied facts that may point to serious deficiencies in the government’s case?
Jeremy Snow, a prosecutor and criminal defense attorney who has seen hundreds of trials, states that Navarro’s approach is anything but standard. Snow writes:They have a right to explain why they were there. It goes to their state of mind or mens rea, one of the things the prosecution has to prove against them, and therefore one of the things they have a right to defend against. By denying them that right, she is literally denying them the right to a fair trial.Observers in the courtroom have noted that Navarro’s slanted approach to this trial has left some jurors visibly aghast at her antics. The nullification that Navarro so clearly fears may end up being the result of her own heavy-handedness in the courtroom.
Jurors in Oregon and in the first Nevada trial clearly heard more truth than prosecutors wanted them to hear. That’s why they wouldn’t convict.
Navarro seems determined to prevent that from happening again.
Bryan Hyde is an opinion columnist specializing in current events viewed through the lens of common sense. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.
Share this:
The Constitution? Not Allowed,
written by Vin Suprynowicz. Suprynowicz must be getting along in years. He has been writing articles in the Las Vegas papers for as long as I can remember. I always enjoyed reading his articles.
Quote:
Suprynowicz was for 20 years a columnistand editorial writer at the daily Las VegasReview-Journal. He blogs at www.vinsuprynowicz.com.
For more information and to help the Bundyfamily, go to bundyranch.blogspot.com.
To help the Hammond family, go to www.freethehammonds.org.
[IMG]file:///page1image3088[/IMG] A The Constitution? Not allowed.Conspiracy convictions in Bundy standoff? Not a one. By Vin Suprynowicz
This article is in Range Magazine, wont copy, paste well http://rangemagazine.com/features/fa...ot_allowed.pdf
Andrea Parker update August 22 ~ Valley Forge Network
Juror Statement, possible verdict at 5PM EDT, 2PM PDT ~ Valley Forge Network
Not Guilty 34 counts, 6 counts still hung ~ J Grady
Andrea Olson-Parker Awaiting Release of Steven Stewart and Ricky Lovelin ~ J Grady
John Lamb 34 Counts Not Guilty, Six Counts Hung ~ J Grady, Not bad considering Navarro hand picked the jury. This probably didn't sit too well with Jeff Session's 'tough on crime' program.
J Grady has uploaded more vids
http://youtu.be/Zp62X8Qq6Ck
http://youtu.be/JxEsA-DWi_Q
http://youtu.be/z01UurWPPc0
Last of the J Grady uploads at this time
http://youtu.be/HpFtQiEjdf8
Retired US Army Lt. Colonel Royston Potter commends the Bundy Jury for seeing throught thr govt. bull$h-t
https://twitter.com/consmilitia/stat...12986720280166
@CONSMILITIA
WE THE PEOPLE, by failing to maintain our Militia, are reduced to merely the abject subjects of govt which is administered by someone else.
Release of the P3s, all four were released ~ J Grady
http://youtu.be/-yYs1k1X7Zk
https://youtu.be/-yYs1k1X7Zk
:o Bravo to Monty for the best maintained thread in GSUS history:Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
- Replies: 1,386
- Views: 59,750
It wouldn't be complete without some victory fotosQuote:
Originally Posted by Jewboo
https://scontent.fbog1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...b7&oe=5A3039A8
https://scontent.fbog1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...9f&oe=5A1CA341
https://scontent.fbog1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...f7&oe=5A254571
https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...7b&oe=5A208961
Ricky Lovelein a free man!
https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...5c&oe=5A33E627
Kokesh updated his fedbook foto
https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...e9&oe=5A240534
They have had their ass handed to them in Oregon, now in Nevada. All that remains now is for the ignorant bastards to admit defeat and drop the remaining charges.
Free the Hammonds
Kati Batie with Mike Arnold and 63 others.
11 hrs ·
As the patriot community rejoices at the acquittal of two men and partial acquittal of two more and the release of all four to hug their loved ones, a short phone call has me stopped in my tracks.
Tonight is bittersweet for one old woman who will sit home alone while her husband and son are held in a federal prison counting the days till they too will be reunited. The crack in her voice when she began to tell me of today's verdict broke my heart in two. My heart aches tonight for my neighbor, my friend.
The Hammond's are not forgotten. I #STAND for Dwight Hammond. I #STAND for Steve Hammond. Harney County #STANDS for the Hammond's.
When you are thanking the lord for the verdict today please say a prayer for the Hammond's. Pray that peace will fill their days. Pray that the hard days are few and that the easy days be easy. Pray for President Donald J. Trump to pardon these ranchers and send them home.
#FreeTheHammonds #NeverForgetTheHammonds #DwightHammond#SteveHammond
https://fb-s-a-a.akamaihd.net/h-ak-f...c9d344480265ab
93 Likes35 Comments182 Shares
Someone needs to post in this thread the "three tiers" of prisoners and their individual names and where those people are right now in terms of their incarceration and trials. It is my understand that the release of the four yesterday is only the "first tier" of people.
You are correct. I will try to find the names of the other two tiers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dachsie
Las Vegas Sun on the Not Guilty verdicts
https://photos.lasvegassun.com/media...34634cbc5420f3
SHANNON BUSHMANThe stand-off between the Bureau of Land Management and supporters of rancher Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville is shown April 12, 2014. The BLM eventually called off its roundup of Bundy cattle citing safety concerns.
Jury refuses to convict in Bundy ranch standoff
A federal jury in Las Vegas refused Tuesday to convict four defendants who were retried on accusations that they threatened and assaulted federal agents by wielding assault weapons in a 2014 confrontation to stop a cattle roundup near the Nevada ranch of states' rights figure Cliven Bundy.
In a stunning setback to federal prosecutors planning to try the Bundy family patriarch and two adult sons later this year, the jury acquitted Ricky Lovelien and Steven Stewart of all 10 charges, and delivered not-guilty findings on most charges against Scott Drexler and Eric Parker.
More than 30 defendants' supporters in the courtroom broke into applause after Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ordered Lovelien and Stewart freed immediately and set Wednesday morning hearings to decide if Parker and Drexler should remain jailed pending a government decision whether to seek a third trial.
"Random people off the streets, these jurors, they told the government again that we're not going to put up with tyranny," said a John Lamb, a Montana resident who attended almost all the five weeks of trial, which began with jury selection July 10.
"They've been tried twice and found not guilty," Bundy family matriarch Carol Bundy said outside court. "We the people are not guilty."
A first trial earlier this year lasted two months and ended in April with a different jury finding two defendants — Gregory Burleson of Phoenix and Todd Engel of Idaho — guilty of some charges but failing to reach verdicts against Drexler, Parker, Lovelien and Stewart.
Prosecutors characterized the six as the least culpable of 19 co-defendants arrested in early 2016 and charged in the case, including Bundy family members. With the release of Lovelien and Stewart, 17 are still in federal custody.
The current jury deliberated four full days after more than 20 days of testimony. The six men and six women returned no verdicts on four charges against Parker — assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal officer and two related counts of use of a firearm — and also hung on charges of assault on a federal officer and brandishing a firearm against Drexler. Navarro declared a mistrial on those counts.
None of the defendants was found guilty of a key conspiracy charge alleging that they plotted with Bundy family members to form a self-styled militia and prevent the lawful enforcement of multiple court orders to remove Bundy cattle from arid desert rangeland in what is now the Gold Butte National Monument.
Bundy stopped paying grazing fees decades ago, saying he refused to recognize federal authority over public land where he said his family grazed cattle since the early 1900s. The dispute has roots a nearly half-century fight over public lands in Nevada and the West, where the federal government controls vast expanses of land.
Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre declined immediate comment on the verdicts. He said he'd make a determination later whether to seek a third trial for Parker and Drexler.
Stewart became emotional and reached for tissues as the jury findings were read. He and Lovelien were later taken with their lawyers, Richard Tanasi and Shawn Perez, to be processed by U.S. marshals for release.
Stewart, 38, lives in Hailey, Idaho. Lovelien, 54, is from Westville, Oklahoma, but he led a militia group called Montana State Defense Force.
All four men were photographed carrying assault-style weapons during the standoff near the Nevada town of Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. Each had faced the possibility of decades in federal prison if they were convicted.
Jurors saw images of Parker and Drexler in prone shooting positions looking down their rifles through slots in the concrete barrier of an Interstate 15 freeway overpass toward heavily armed federal agents guarding a corral of cows below.
Defense attorneys noted that no shots were fired and no one was injured. They cast the tense standoff with more than 100 men, women and children in the potential crossfire as an ultimately peaceful protest involving people upset about aggressive tactics used by federal land managers against Bundy family members.
Drexler, 46, is from Challis, Idaho, and Parker, 34, is from Hailey, Idaho.
Parker's attorney, Jess Marchese, said he hoped Myhre will dismiss the two charges remaining against his client.
Drexler's attorney, Todd Leventhal, referred to defense teams' complaints that Navarro set such strict rules of evidence that defendants weren't able to tell why they traveled to the Bundy ranch.
The judge rejected testimony from five prospective defense witnesses, and Drexler and Parker were the only defendants to testify in their defense. However, the judge struck Parker's testimony for what she said was a deliberate failure to keep his testimony within her rules.
All four defense attorneys declined Aug. 15 to make closing arguments, a gesture of standing mute that Leventhal said may have had an effect on the jury.
"As much as we were shut down from bringing anything up, the jury saw through it," he said.
In response to Daschie's inquiry on who is in tiers 1 & 2
Quote:
Federal prosecutors describe these defendants as “followers.”“The trial of the Tier 3 defendants will likely be a shorter trial than the trial of either the Tier 1 or Tier 2 defendants,” Leen explained in her order.
Thirty days after the first trial, the trial for “tier 1” defendants will commence. This group includes those federal prosecutors say were the leaders and organizers of the standoff, such as Cliven Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Ammon Bundy, Peter Santilli and Ryan Payne.
Last up will be “tier 2” defendants Dave Bundy, Mel Bundy, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, Brian Cavalier, Jason Woods and Micah McGuire.
https://www.courthousenews.com/least...-bundy-trials/
Quote:
Originally Posted by monty
Very important information. So the 4 people released yesterday were Tier 3 defendants. I stand thankfully clarified and corrected.
Next trial will be 30 days from "after the trial" of the "first trial" which was the Tier 3 defendants' trial. Not sure exact date that trial ended but guess around August 22, 2017, so guess next trial will commence around September 22.
The knot heads are going to try Eric Parker and Scott Drexler a 3rd time. That means Cliven Bundy's tier won't e tried before Jan 2018
"The knot heads are going to try Eric Parker and Scott Drexler a 3rd time. That means Cliven Bundy's tier won't e tried before Jan 2018
"
It is very confusing.
If the "30 days after the trial" still holds true and that means "after the" retrial of Parker and Drexler, I do not know how you can know that the trial of Bundy tier 1 won't take place until January of 2018.