Mistrial declared in Cliven Bundy standoff case

By Maxine Bernstein

A federal judge Wednesday declared a mistrial in the prosecution of Nevada cattleman Cliven Bundy, his two sons and a co-defendant, citing the government's "willful'' failure to turn over multiple documents that could help the defense fight conspiracy and assault charges in the 2014 Bunkerville standoff. "The court does regrettably believe a mistrial in this case is the most suitable and only remedy,'' U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro declared, issuing her ruling from the bench before a packed courtroom. The judge listed six documents or pieces of evidence that prosecutors failed to turn over before trial, including reports on an FBI surveillance camera posted outside the Bundy ranch and documents that identified U.S. Bureau of Land Management snipers outside the ranch. She also cited an FBI log with entries that noted "snipers were inserted'' and on standby outside the Bundy home, at least four threat assessments that indicated the Bundys likely wouldn't use violence and that the Bureau of Land Management was antagonizing the family, and an internal affairs document on the lead BLM agent Dan Love that said there were no documented injuries to desert tortoises by cattle grazing on the federal land. The mistrial dealt a significant setback to federal prosecutors, yet they may be able to retry the defendants. Both sides were instructed to submit legal briefs by Dec. 29 on whether the government should be allowed to pursue a new trial. The judge indicated she'd likely make a future ruling on whether the case should be a mistrial with prejudice, meaning no future trial would be held. The Bundys and their supporters called the ruling a partial victory. They had sought a full dismissal of the case. Defense lawyers are expected to challenge any effort to retry Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, his older brother Ryan Bundy and Ryan Payne, arguing that it was the government's failure to share relevant evidence before trial that caused the mistrial and they shouldn't be allowed to try it again under the double jeopardy law...more