Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Drama closes Nevada trial: Bundy case defense lawyers stay mute

In a dramatic end to a contentious trial, defense attorneys declined Tuesday to make closing arguments on behalf of four men accused of wielding assault weapons against federal agents in a 2014 standoff near Nevada anti-government figure Cliven Bundy's ranch. The move left defendants Eric Parker, Steven Stewart and Ricky Lovelien of Montana and Oklahoma essentially mute in answer to 10 felony charges including conspiracy, weapon possession and assault on a federal officer. Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre was left Tuesday with nothing to rebut, so he abandoned his plan to have the last word before the jury of eight women and eight men began deliberations. The panel heard five weeks of prosecution testimony. They resume deliberations on Wednesday. Each defendant could face decades in prison if convicted. Myhre and attorneys for Drexler, Parker and Stewart, all of Idaho, each declined outside court to comment. Attorney Shawn Perez, representing Ricky Lovelien of Montana and Oklahoma, said he didn't think the government proved its case, so he felt no closing argument was needed. The jury on Tuesday heard a three-hour recitation by prosecutor Nadia Ahmed of the charges, retrial evidence and instructions from the judge. Ahmed relied heavily on photos and videos showing each defendant carrying an assault-style weapon during the protest to stop a roundup of Bundy family cattle from public rangeland in a vast Gold Butte area that has since been made a national monument. Proving conspiracy is crucial for prosecutors ahead of a next trial, expected later this year, for the Bundy family patriarch, his two eldest sons and two other defendants. They each face 15 charges. Six other defendants, including two other Bundy sons, are slated for trial next year...more

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I didn't go to law school - so correct me if I'm wrong - is the proper term for a court session referred to as a "hearing" or a "here in"???

If it is a 'hearing' - the root word is 'hear' and that means the jurors and judge should 'hear' all sides of the case at a 'hearing'.

Or, maybe the term has now morphed into meaning 'here in' - where the defendants just show up and sit 'here in' the courtroom and not allowed to say anything - like potted plants.