Malheur Jurors Question Impartiality Of Fellow Jury Member

Federal prosecutors and the attorneys for seven defendants in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge trial reconvened Tuesday afternoon at the U.S. District Courthouse in downtown Portland.
Jurors submitted two questions to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown. In a hand-written note, the jurors indicated they may not be able to agree on charges for all seven of the defendants.

In a hand written note to U.S. District Court Judge Anna Brown, the jurors indicated they may not be able to agree on charges for all seven of the defendants.

Amelia Templeton/OPB

“If we are able to agree on a verdict for 3 of the defendants; but are at a stand off for the others, does our decision for the three stand? Or does this become a mistrial for all the defendants?” the jurors wrote in the note.
“Conversely if we are able to agree on a decision for 10 out of the 13 charges does that decision stand or does it become a mistrial?” the note from the jury continued. “As an example … If we find a defendant guilty of count one, but can’t agree on count two what happens?”
In a separate note, the jury also raised questions about the impartiality of one of its members.

In a note to U.S. District Judge Anna Brown, the jury raised questions about the impartiality of one of its members. Brown has sent a note back to the jury asking them for clarification.

Amelia Templeton/OPB

“Can a juror, a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, who opens their remarks in deliberations by stating ‘I am very biased …’ be considered an impartial judge in this case?” the second note from the jury read.
Brown has sent a note back to the jury asking them for clarification.
“Jurors, before I can respond to your question about the instructions,” she said, “I need to address the other question sent to me.”
The juror was later identified as juror No. 11. Jurors were allowed to continue deliberations as the issue was resolved.
“We ask that he simply be dismissed,” Per Olson, David Fry’s defense attorney, said in court.
“I can’t do that” Brown said.
“If we do not get to the bottom of this statement that was allegedly made, we are inviting a mistrial,” said Marcus Mumford, defense attorney for Ammon Bundy.
Prosecutors argued the judge should ignore the second question.
“It’s the government’s position that it is not appropriate to respond to this at this stage,” said Assistant U.S. Attorney Ethan Knight.
Brown eventually said she would bring Knight, Mumford and Olsen into her chambers to question juror No. 11 about his statements during jury selection, specifically whether or not his previous employment with the BLM would influence his decision in the case...more at OPB News