A federal judge in Las Vegas raised the prospect of a mistrial Monday for four main defendants, including lifelong rancher Cliven Bundy, in the Bunkerville standoff case. The indication from U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro came three weeks into testimony about the 2014 armed conflict, and after the judge read through a long list of documents, witness names and other information that she said government prosecutors did not provide to defendants in a timely fashion. That failure to disclose details that could benefit Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan, and independent Montana militiaman Ryan Payne was “sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome of the trial,” Navarro said. She indicated that prosecutors failed to meet deadlines to turn over evidence at least seven times. Before making a decision, however, the judge dismissed jurors, who had returned for testimony after a weeklong break, and later indicated they would not be called back to court until at least Dec. 20. After releasing the jury, Navarro closed her courtroom to the public for a hearing with the defendants, their lawyers and prosecutors. “I hope to get the case dismissed before the jurors come back,” Cliven Bundy’s attorney, Bret Whipple, later said. Prosecutors have until Friday to respond to the judge’s concern that they missed evidence deadlines, along with questions she had about 14 other possible trial violations...more
Attorney General Jeff Sessions yesterday praised the lead attorney in the government's prosecution of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy but also said he would not be "taking sides" in the trials related to the 2014 armed standoff between ranchers and federal agents near Bunkerville, Nev. In an appearance in Nevada, Sessions briefly raised the Bunkerville trials to laud Nevada acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The government has divided its prosecution into three cases, one of which began a retrial this week after a jury deadlocked on charges against four of six defendants in April. "I've got to tell you, it's impressive when you have a tough case, a controversial case, and you've got the top guy leading the battle, going to court, standing up and defending the office and the principles of the law," Sessions said. But he added: "I'm not taking sides or commenting on the case. Just want to say that leadership requires, a lot of times, our people to step up and be accountable."
.
1 comment:
"The Brady Rule requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused..."
"---evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness."
"If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule - and prejudice has ensued - the evidence will be suppressed."
"The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense."
"The Supreme Court has eliminated the requirement for a defendant to have requested a favorable information...stating that the Prosecution HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DISCLOSE...that is triggered by the potential impact of favorable but undisclosed evidence."
*^** Withholding exculpatory evidence...including the FBI's "threat assessment report" that assessed the Bundys as 'not a threat'...could really come back to haunt the FBI when the Finicum case goes to trial...
...especially in combination with not fulfilling their duty to preserve the missing shell casings for evidence in Finicum's shooting....
Excerpts from Sept. 2016 video "Trey Howdy ruins IRS's John Koskinen's career with this one"--
"Spoliation of evidence is when a party fails to preserve evidence...there's a negative inference that the jury can draw from failure to preserve the evidence."
"If you destroy documents the jury can infer that those documents weren't going to be good for you."
"If you fail to keep documents the jury can infer that those documents were not going to be good for you."
"When a party has a duty to preserve evidence or records - and they fail to do so -
there is a negative inference that is drawn from their failure to preserve the evidence."
"If you destroyed something, the jury has a RIGHT to infer that whatever you destroyed would not be good for you, or else every litigant would destroy whatever evidence was detrimental to them."
"The jury can draw - and they're INSTRUCTED - they can draw a negative inference."
And, although the charges against the FIB agent who lied about the shooting will be used to infer negatively only against that one agent - the jury has a right to infer that his lies covered up evidence that would not be good for the entire FBI & OSP parties involved.
Like when judge Anna Brown repeatedly told the jury "You have more than enough evidence to convict"
In all of these past trials - there's more than enough evidence to convict multiple govt parties in spoliation evidence detrimental to the government and not fulfilling their constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence that has favorable information to the defense.
That also applies to Hammond's case, Jack Yantis, Duarte Nursery case, Joe Robertson, Hage's, Bill Case and many others.
Maybe the real reason Navarro released the Bundys, is to make room in the prisons for all the govt employees carrying out Obama's PLOT (Presidential Legacy Of Tyranny).
Post a Comment