Judge declares a mistrial in Bundy case

[imported_tajmahal]

But isn't that a presumption of guilt rather than innocence. Only a trial can say that.

I usually disagree with your point of view, but i treasure your honesty.

 

[Moonbeam]

Since I’m not a court I’m under no obligation to presume innocence. I just look at the available evidence and that’s awfully clear.

That reminds me of the time when Mulla Nasrudin was a judge. After the prosecution presented its case that the defendant was guilty the Mulla slammed down the gavel and pronounced I believe you are right. The defense jumped to it's feet and presented a rebuttal. The Mulla slammed down his gavel again and said, I believe you are right. The court clerk then stood and said they can't both be right, to which the Mulla commented again, I believe you are right. I believe you believe you are right too.

What we are dealing with here, I believe, is not guilt or innocence but the preservation of a sense that justice is actually justice and not somebody's favoritism. You may have any opinion you like but I will not support any opinion based on withholding evidence. It isn't the defendant but justice itself that then goes on trial. As interchange said, it is better the guilty go free than that faith in justice is corrupted by malpractice. Even monkeys know when the system isn't fair.

You have acknowledged the fact that withholding evidence wasn't right. You may have to eat the fact that these people will by that act get away free. The implications of interchange's post were obvious and very pertinent in my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

I usually disagree with your point of view, but i treasure your honesty.

I was cursed early in life. My Mother told me to be honest and Christianity told me I could never hide behind lies before God. Despite that fact, I think I am still dishonest in many ways. It takes more than just honesty, I think, to unearth deeply suppressed, i.e. unconscious feelings. Thank you though.

 

[fskimospy]

That reminds me of the time when Mulla Nasrudin was a judge. After the prosecution presented its case that the defendant was guilty the Mulla slammed down the gavel and pronounced I believe you are right. The defense jumped to it's feet and presented a rebuttal. The Mulla slammed down his gavel again and said, I believe you are right. The court clerk then stood and said they can't both be right, to which the Mulla commented again, I believe you are right. I believe you believe you are right too.

What we are dealing with here, I believe, is not guilt or innocence but the preservation of a sense that justice is actually justice and not somebody's favoritism. You may have any opinion you like but I will not support any opinion based on withholding evidence. It isn't the defendant but justice itself that then goes on trial. As interchange said, it is better the guilty go free than that faith in justice is corrupted by malpractice. Even monkeys know when the system isn't fair.

You have acknowledged the fact that withholding evidence wasn't right. You may have to eat the fact that these people will by that act get away free. The implications of interchange's post were obvious and very pertinent in my opinion.

That’s not how it works, as I said I’m fine with a mistrial, but the prosecution should begin a new trial immediately.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That’s not how it works, as I said I’m fine with a mistrial, but the prosecution should begin a new trial immediately.

You don't think the prosecutor should wait until the Judges ruling on Jan. 8th?

*EDIT* Never mind, he may not even get the chance.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/22/doj-opens-probe-into-bundy-prosecutors-who-hid-evidence/

 

[Moonbeam]

That’s not how it works, as I said I’m fine with a mistrial, but the prosecution should begin a new trial immediately.

Can you be more specific about what you mean by 'that's not how it works'? I didn't think I was saying anything about how something works, only that the first thing I think of when a prosecution fucks up is that their case must not stand for justice to be done. I'm not saying anything or recommending anything as a course of action in this particular case, only that I understand and appreciate what interchange said, that his point was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the OP and to my mind thus very relevant. What should or should not happen in this case may well have been compromised by bad legal practice on the part of the government and that if people actually wind up escaping justice as a result, that is better than being found guilty unfairly. Perhaps you are focused on seeing that justice is done, that the guilty are punished, whereas to my mind the greater issue is the preservation of the principles of justice, that the most vital principle of a system of law is that it be fair by its own standards of fairness.

The principles of justice, in our modern system, are always under attack. They can be corrupted by money, partisanship, and a desire to make a name for the sake of promotions, etc. Without a maximum effort to preserve the integrity of our system we as a society are fucked.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

More documents unsealed and released after Christmas showing more prosecution's violations. Some updates in this link
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/12/newly-unsealed_motions_in_nv_b.html

"Instead, Navarro on Dec. 20 declared a mistrial, finding at least six types of Brady discovery violations and that prosecutors "willfully'' withheld the evidence, resulting in due process violations. She set a hearing for Jan. 8 to determine if the case should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be retried. The government and defendants have until Friday to file their written arguments."

 

[dank69]

No retrial. Prosecution really screwed the pooch here.

 

[brycejones]

No retrial. Prosecution really screwed the pooch here.

Sucks, this will only encourage others to think they can steal with impunity.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Dismissed "with prejudice"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/0...-cliven-bundy-three-others-are-dismissed.html

https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...case-retried-federal-court-ruling/1008051001/


"A federal judge on Monday said the federal prosecutors' conduct was "outrageous" and "violated due process rights" of the defendants.

U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed the charges against the four men "with prejudice," meaning they cannot face trial again. She said a new trial would not be sufficient to address the problems in the case and would provide the prosecution with an unfair advantage going forward.

The judge criticized both the prosecution and the FBI for not providing evidence to the defense as required under court rules. "The court finds that the universal sense of justice has been violated," Navarro said.

Navarro said it was clear the FBI was involved in the prosecution of the case, and that it was not a coincidence that most of the withheld evidence came from the FBI.


She said the prosecution's reliance on the FBI and failure to look beyond the documents the FBI provided represented an "intentional abdication of its responsibility." Essentially, she said the prosecution decided not to follow up because the evidence would have worked in the Bundys' favor. "

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Sucks, this will only encourage others to think they can steal with impunity.

Maybe it will discourage prosecutorial misconduct, willful negligence of the law by enforcement agencies and rein in an out of control FBI.

 

[dank69]

Maybe it will discourage prosecutorial misconduct, willful negligence of the law by enforcement agencies and rein in an out of control FBI.

I think you are reading your own link wrong. Nothing in it says the FBI did anything wrong.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I think you are reading your own link wrong. Nothing in it says the FBI did anything wrong.

Of course, there's no way they were complicit in withholding information for 3 or 4 years. Of course.

 

[dank69]

Of course, there's no way they were complicit in withholding information for 3 or 4 years. Of course.

It doesn't say the FBI withheld info. It says the prosecution withheld the info it got from the FBI.

 

[dainthomas]

Pretty clear prosecutorial misconduct to illegally suppress evidence that the FBI had procured.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/us/cliven-bundy-mistrail.html


'A federal judge declared a mistrial on Wednesday in the case of Nevada cattle ranchers and one of their supporters, whose dispute with the government over grazing rights turned into an armed standoff in 2014. The judge stated that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence from the defense.

The ruling in Federal District Court in Las Vegas by Judge Gloria M. Navarro was the latest failure by federal prosecutors to convict participants in the standoff led by Cliven D. Bundy and his sons Ammon E. Bundy and Ryan C. Bundy. Two earlier trials against other defendants ended in hung juries.

The judge ruled that prosecutors violated the rights of the defendants — the three Bundys and a supporter, Ryan W. Payne — by failing to turn over an array of material ahead of the trial. That included video taken from within the Bundy ranch during the standoff by a federal informant, evidence that F.B.I. agents were involved in the standoff, and a threat assessment of the Bundys drafted by the government. She ruled verbally, and not in writing.
........
Among the withheld reports the judge mentioned, she said, was one in which government officials said the Bundys were not violent. “She cited all of that,” Ms. Bundy said. “At this point, I don’t know what kind of a case they have against us.”
............
The Bundys had long alleged misconduct by federal agents and prosecutors, and powerful evidence for their claims emerged last week in The Oregonian newspaper, which made public a complaint that a Bureau of Land Management agent had filed with the Justice Department. The agent alleged unprofessionalism, bias, heavy-handed tactics, and withholding of evidence by his colleagues during and after the standoff, and he said that after he informed prosecutors, he was removed from the case.
..........
"Andrea Parker, the wife of Eric Parker, an ally of the Bundys who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor related to the standoff, said, “It’s great that they’re showing the malicious prosecution that’s been going on — by the prosecution, the F.B.I. and the B.L.M. It’s finally getting out there, it’s something we weren’t afforded or allowed at our trial.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.5b4aa6662ca9
"U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro determined that the prosecution suppressed evidence from FBI surveillance cameras recording the Bundy family home and the presence of Bureau of Land Management snipers around the property in the days leading up to the standoff there. Additionally, the prosecution did not provide FBI logs, maps, reports and threat assessments that said the Bundy family was not dangerous.

Navarro pointed to assessments conducted by the FBI, the Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center and the BLM that said “the Bundy family is not violent” and that they “would probably get in your face, but not get into a shootout.”

The court “regrettably believes a mistrial is the only suitable option,” Navarro told the packed Nevada courtroom. “A fair trial at this point is impossible.”

Nice try. These clowns were degrading and profiting from my land without paying for it. Definitely not the good guys.

 

[IronWing]

Cliven Bundy is still a deadbeat thief and welfare cheat.

 

[Jhhnn]

It doesn't say the FBI withheld info. It says the prosecution withheld the info it got from the FBI.

Correct. The right wing is trying desperately to smear the FBI any way they can in an effort to protect Trump. This is on the prosecutors.

 

[brycejones]

Of course, there's no way they were complicit in withholding information for 3 or 4 years. Of course.

Derp, turning over evidence is the prosecutor's responsibility, once again tajbot fails at understanding how the legal system works.

 

[brycejones]

Maybe it will discourage prosecutorial misconduct, willful negligence of the law by enforcement agencies and rein in an out of control FBI.

The bold I agree with its a critical part of our legal system. The rest of your statement is just derp though.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Cliven Bundy is still a deadbeat thief and welfare cheat.

And yet in the battle of him vs government he was by far the lesser of two evils.

 

[Jhhnn]

And yet in the battle of him vs government he was by far the lesser of two evils.

Hardly. He & his ancestors have overgrazed the living shit out of adjacent federal lands since they first settled there. It's a ecological disaster area as is much of the Great Basin in general for precisely the same reason. That's what this fracas is really about. If the Bundys conform to their grazing allotment & pay the fees they'd have no trouble with the BLM. OTOH, they have to overgraze to make a living. Left to their own devices, they won't be able to stay on the land more than a generation, anyway, because they'll denude the landscape.

The BLM mostly served the Ranchers until the mid 90's when they realized that degradation of the land was becoming severe, then cut back & attempted to enforce grazing allotments. That doesn't fit with Bundy's business model which is to graze as many fucking cattle as he wants, just like he'd done his whole life up until then. It's understandable in a way because degradation is slow, hard to recognize over a single lifetime.

 

[interchange]

Hard to say what has actually happened, but Taj's source does state that involvement from the FBI influenced prosecutorial misconduct. I do not think this should discredit the FBI's investigations of Trump and associates or Hillary.

 

[IronWing]

And yet in the battle of him vs government he was by far the lesser of two evils.

Bullshit. Bundy invited armed thugs to his ranch and threatened violence in defying court orders. He's a violent deadbeat thief.

Keep in mind that the US attorney who brought the case resigned at the beginning of the Trump administration. Did the Trump appointees throw the case?

 

[dank69]

Bullshit. Bundy invited armed thugs to his ranch and threatened violence in defying court orders. He's a violent deadbeat thief.

Keep in mind that the US attorney who brought the case resigned at the beginning of the Trump administration. Did the Trump appointees throw the case?

And another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Bullshit. Bundy invited armed thugs to his ranch and threatened violence in defying court orders. He's a violent deadbeat thief.

Keep in mind that the US attorney who brought the case resigned at the beginning of the Trump administration. Did the Trump appointees throw the case?

Yep, Bundy is a man so vile, so repugnant, so evil that he was acquitted in one trial and then a team of federal prosecutors had to cheat in a second trial because they were afraid to let a jury see all the real evidence in the case. ROFL!!