Oregon Malheur Trial

[Duke2Earl]

I have no doubt whatsoever that these lovely people will give the government another chance in the not too distant future. Stay tuned.

[Tuba Cain]

In what can only be considered proof that these jackasses had a jury of their peers, the Bundys et al have been acquitted.

Were you present for the trial? If not, you don't know that.

Sustained. Still gobsmacked though.

[The Observer]

I am guessing the jury was really trying to send a message about their feelings over the father-son ranching team that had been sent back to prison; in that light, they probably transferred their sympathy to the Malheur Malcontents, since the claim is this is why the Bundy team came to Oregon in the first place.

As pointed out, there is a another trial awaiting some of these defendants in Nevada, along with Cliven Bundy. Again, there is a segment of the population who sympathize with the Bundys and the perceived high-handedness of BLM in the past. The prosecution team should be learning all they can from the Oregon trial and not make the same mistakes.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I haven't seen the jury instructions at this point, but I would only point out that conspiracy is a tough nut to crack because it deals with the state of mind of the accused.

Are there other charges pending?

[jcolvin2]

Interesting interview with Juror No 4:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... aj-story-1

[ArthurWankspittle]

I haven't seen the jury instructions at this point, but I would only point out that conspiracy is a tough nut to crack because it deals with the state of mind of the accused.

Are there other charges pending?

If I spot them I'll put a link up. They will be somewhere in Jack Ryan's stuff. There are no other charges pending in Oregon, it all moves to Nevada in Feb 2017 for the Bunkerville related trial and there are a whole load more charges in that case. The only things left to deal with in Oregon are the people who plead guilty and one attempt at a change of plea from guilty to not guilty, IIRC.

[The Observer]

The jury, he said, met with Judge Brown after the verdicts were announced and after the U.S. Marshals' physical confrontation and arrest of Bundy lawyer Marcus Mumford.

He said many of the jurors questioned the judge about why the federal government chose the "conspiracy charge.'' He said he learned that a potential alternate charge, such as criminal trespass, wouldn't have brought as significant a penalty.

So the Nevada prosecution needs to weigh the risk of swinging for the fences.

[notorial dissent]

I am still gobsmacked, but yeah.

[Tuba Cain]

With respects to my previous comments about the jury, I would like to publicly retract any suggestion that they were of the same ilk as the Bundys or the associated gaggle of deranged buffoons.

It appears as though they truly did not believe that the prosecution made their case; and, having devoted as ass chapping amout of time following this trial - as I know many of you have as well - I can honestly say that I can see where they're coming from.

I suspect the prosecution thought they had a cakewalk on their hands, and ended up fumbling.

[TheNewSaint]

I haven't seen the jury instructions at this point, but I would only point out that conspiracy is a tough nut to crack because it deals with the state of mind of the accused.

But these defendants published reams of material on social media explaining their state of mind in great detail. If you can't convict this bunch for conspiracy, who can you?

[Pottapaug1938]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ammon- ... ar-AAjv40e

“It gave Ammon a chance to explain his side,” Lewis & Clark Law Professor Tung Yin told the Daily News. “And apparently the jury seemed to agree. I think it’s really hard to see this as anything other than jury nullification.”

[ArthurWankspittle]

I haven't seen the jury instructions at this point, but I would only point out that conspiracy is a tough nut to crack because it deals with the state of mind of the accused.

But these defendants published reams of material on social media explaining their state of mind in great detail. If you can't convict this bunch for conspiracy, who can you?

Having slept on this outcome, I agree with the judge in part because I think the jury hasn't understood "conspiracy". They were looking for a Facebook event of "Occupy the Malheur Refuge and stop the government getting back in" and expecting the accused to be in the list of "definitely going". The prosecution failed to make it absolutely clear that the accused had agreed to do something which, as a consequence, caused something else. As an outcome, I can see that this will change the approach with the Nevada trial, and Nevada will concentrate on "black and white" evidence of the type "here's a picture of a previously convicted felon with a firearm".
And I still haven't spotted the actual jury instructions, there are motions to change them but not the actual things themselves.

[Rakked]

After all these folks have gotten away with, I'm almost not surprised at this.

Ah well. There's still Nevada. I'll keep my fingers crossed for the prosecutors there.

[Jeffrey]

Having slept on this outcome, I agree with the judge in part because I think the jury hasn't understood "conspiracy". They were looking for a Facebook event of "Occupy the Malheur Refuge and stop the government getting back in" and expecting the accused to be in the list of "definitely going". The prosecution failed to make it absolutely clear that the accused had agreed to do something which, as a consequence, caused something else.

After sleeping on it myself, I'm with the Jury. The prosecution charged them with impeding government workers then didn't prove that they conspired to do that. And as Fogbow pointed out, the prosecution had evidence that the Bundys intended to impede government workers but did not show it at the trial. This is like me robbing a bank, then having the government charge me with impeding the bank workers from doing their job. Clearly my goal was not to block the teller from doing her job, my goal was to get the banks money.

[ArthurWankspittle]

This is like me robbing a bank, then having the government charge me with impeding the bank workers from doing their job. Clearly my goal was not to block the teller from doing her job, my goal was to get the banks money.

I think we might be in agreement here. My point is that you have impeded the tellers from doing their job, but it needs explaining how that is connected.(*) It also raises the point that there could have been "better" or a more comprehensive list of charges. That was a further thought I had. Why wasn't a range of charges used? Like Sedition at the highest level to trespass/camping without a permit at the lowest. I can see that the prosecution might want to keep it simple but the doubt of the jury over the one main charge has meant that the prosecution have come away with nothing.
(* I'm thinking of situations like kidnap charges when an armed robber says "nobody move" or "nobody leaves" - the consequences of the situation are that the scenario is kidnap under the law. The robber didn't set out to kidnap anyone, they set out to carry out a robbery, but the consequences and the law can be explained to a jury and they can convict in that situation. Ask O J Simpson.)

[notorial dissent]

I never understood why they went with the conspiracy charge to begin with, they are notoriously hard to prove, as witness the outcome here. I would have thought there were other equally good substantive charges they could have gone with that would have worked better, but then IANAL, but I do think it was an uphill battle that they chose the route they did. That and they didn't do a very good job of selling it IMHO.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I never understood why they went with the conspiracy charge to begin with, they are notoriously hard to prove, as witness the outcome here. I would have thought there were other equally good substantive charges they could have gone with that would have worked better, but then IANAL, but I do think it was an uphill battle that they chose the route they did. That and they didn't do a very good job of selling it IMHO.

I think the conspiracy charge has a "domino" effect or element to it. If you convince the jury that one or two people conspired, there is a tendency to agree that they all did. You get an all or nothing set of convictions or acquittals.

[notorial dissent]

I never understood why they went with the conspiracy charge to begin with, they are notoriously hard to prove, as witness the outcome here. I would have thought there were other equally good substantive charges they could have gone with that would have worked better, but then IANAL, but I do think it was an uphill battle that they chose the route they did. That and they didn't do a very good job of selling it IMHO.

I think the conspiracy charge has a "domino" effect or element to it. If you convince the jury that one or two people conspired, there is a tendency to agree that they all did. You get an all or nothing set of convictions or acquittals.

And there is pretty much the problem, the all or nothing part, as this one proved.

[TheNewSaint]

there could have been "better" or a more comprehensive list of charges. That was a further thought I had. Why wasn't a range of charges used? Like Sedition at the highest level to trespass/camping without a permit at the lowest.

How about domestic terrorism?

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Though I can see some technical reasons this might not work. Did they commit any "acts dangerous to human life"? Does attempting to influence a criminal sentencing qualify as "influencing the policy of a government"? There's also the matter of proving the "violation of criminal laws", though I think that would be easy if the laws of any state can be applied. I'm sure their arsenal runs afoul of gun ownership laws in more restrictive states.

Is this a route that could have been taken? Would proving it have been a bridge too far?

[Jeffrey]

Good article on Oregonlive discussing this issue:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... _big-photo

Steve Wax, a former federal public defender who now directs Oregon's Innocence Project, said he had wondered at the outset of the arrests why prosecutors didn't seek a more serious charge, something that would have given the case more gravitas and signaled that the occupation broke the barriers of mere protest.

A charge of seditious conspiracy, for instance, alleges two or more people conspired to "by force to seize, take or possess any property of the United States" without authority. It brings prison sentences of up to 20 years.

I'm with Wax, the stated goal of the takeover was sedition, not to "impede government workers".