United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Jury Smacks Down Kangaroo Court in Bundy Trial
Source:
Fully Informed Jury Association
URL Source: https://fija.org/2017/08/23/jury-sm ... kangaroo-court-in-bundy-trial/
Published: Aug 24, 2017
Author: Kirsten Tynan
Post Date: 2017-08-24 05:54:08 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6649
Comments: 27
Yesterday the jury in the trial of four men accused of offenses related to a standoff near the Bundy ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada sent a resounding message to prosecutors and the judge in the case by returning absolutely no Guilty verdicts. Instead, jurors found Ricky Lovelien and Steven Stewart Not Guilty of all 10 charges against them. Jurors found Scott Drexler and Eric Parker Not Guilty of most charges against them, with the jury undecided on four charges against Parker and two charges against Drexler. “There was not a dry eye in the room, except the prosecutors’, who were steaming mad, and the judge’s. I was literally bawling my eyes out,” said FIJA Advisory Board member Dr. Roger Roots, who was in the courtroom when the verdicts were delivered. This is the second trial for all the defendants. They cannot be retried on those charges for which jurors delivered Not Guilty verdicts. However, they can be retried on any charges for which jurors failed to reach a verdict. It is not clear yet whether the prosecution will continue jury shopping in order to find jurors who will convict. Demonstrators were publicly visible outside the courthouse in recent weeks, including several who educated the general public about jurors’ right of conscientious acquittal by jury nullification. While FIJA previously pointed out that the Malheur Refuge occupation acquittals were probably not the result of jury nullification, we have been keeping an eye on other related trials, such as this one, for potential conscientious acquittals. According to Dr. Roots, “This was almost certainly jury nullification. I see no other realistic interpretation. I say that because the defense pretty much did not put on a case, and in fact, were not allowed to put on a case.” Among other things, the judge forbade the defense from many lines of inquiry including Navarro cut off defendant Eric Parker mid-testimony, and she kicked him off the stand for supposedly breaking the rules she laid down. At the time he was cut off, he was rebutting a statement made by a prosecution witness claiming that he looked in a particular direction. That testimony was allowed, but Parker was not allowed to testify that he looked up and to the right. After Not only that statement, but his entire testimony was stricken from the record. Jurors were ordered to disregard all of his testimony, leaving him completely voiceless in his own defense. Defense attorney Jess Marchese confirmed after speaking with jurors that the treatment of the defense factored into their decisions. “The court’s restrictive limitations on the defense were overtly aimed at stopping jury nullification, and yet the irony is that they absolutely fueled it,” Roots said. 
● how well-armed Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agents were or how frightened defendants were of a potential attack,
● any mention of bullying or physically violent behavior of BLM agents leading up to the protest (though the prosecution was allowed to bring up things that happened months beforehand),
● any reference whatsoever to Constitutional First or Second Amendment rights, and
● any testimony from five prospective defense witnesses, whose testimony Judge Navarro pre-screened outside the presence of the jury and ultimately rejected.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#1. To: Deckard, Trumps Fake News DOJ, smackdown, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#0)
The jury determined that Trump's federal prosecutors failed to provide a coherent accounting of any crimes, and the judge did not allow the accused to testify in their own behalf, or their attorneys to adequately question their accusers, so they refused to find the defendants guilty. Smackdown for the statist Jeff Sessions/Trump DOJ, and Harry Reid/Obama's lying, cattle rustling BLM goons, and their murdering FBI/LEO hit squad accomplices! The jury has helped to Make America Great Again, by rejecting blind worship of the corrupt police state, and protecting the God given inalienable civil rights of these falsely accused citizens.
Those claims are false. The witnesses were limited and certain areas were out of bounds. A witness took the stand and almost immediately engaged in prohibited testimony. That is when the judge shut him down and struck his testimony.
Witness were not allowed to testify in their own behalf. Yes, that's correct.
Witness were not allowed to testify in their own behalf. Yes, that's correct. Just because you are ignorant of the law, and proud of it, does not make you right. The defendants were not prevented from testifying. Like all witnesses, they cannot give speeches and inject hearsay. If instead of answering his attorney's question, the defendant chooses to deliberately speechify directly contrary to the court's instructions, as given to him by his attorney, he is removed from the stand, as is any witness who refuses to abide by the rules. The first objection came 20 mintues after Eric Parker took the stand and began testifying. Eric Parker violated the rules three times before he was removed from the stand and his testimony was struck. That was somewhere near an hour into testimony, not counting the lunch break. Defense counsel said, “We were trying to abide by the court’s order.” And he added, “The government objected, the court granted it, and I respect her ruling.”
As a defendant of and about the federal charge of "crimes against the state," why didn't he have constitutional rights & privilege to defend himself in publick?
Assumes facts not based on evidence or reality.
Assumes facts not based on evidence or reality. The jury ain't buying your and Judge Judy's cock 'n bull story, and they declined to find any of the defendants guilty of any of the phony charges.
Only a demented moron will believe that somebody who testified for about an hour was denied his constitutional right to testify. Ignorance is bliss, unless you take your ignorance to court. My "Judge Judy" information is not from a yellow bullshit propaganda organization such as Fully Informed Juror Association (FIJA). A witness who tries their prohibited bullshit in a Federal court gets removed from the stand and gets his testimony struck, and he gets led away to a holding cell. A lawyer trying to pull their nonsense in court gets sanctioned. The judge decides what would be prohibited as arguing jury nullification. If you argue it in violation of the judge's order, you get shut down. He's lucky the judge did not declare another mistrial and more. By David Ferrara Las Vegas Review-Journal Updated August 10, 2017 - 9:31 pm [excerpt] Prosecutors first objected to Parker’s testimony about 20 minutes after he took the stand and uttered the words “First Amendment.” Before the start of the second trial for Parker, a married father of two, and three other men, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro barred the defense from referencing constitutional rights to freely assemble and to bear arms. She also prohibited mention of alleged misconduct or excessive force by law enforcement. After a lengthy sidebar, Parker’s testimony continued before prosecutors objected to his use of the word “sniper.” The judge disallowed the comment and sent the jury to lunch. After returning from the break and spending less than an hour testifying on the stand, Parker described being handed a pair of binoculars while in Bunkerville before he “looked up and to the right.” He seemed to be referencing the same area where he believed a sniper had been positioned. Acting U.S. Attorney Steve Myhre immediately objected and requested a meeting with the judge and defense attorneys. Moments later, Navarro returned to the bench and told Parker to step down. The judge ordered Parker’s testimony stricken before asking defense attorneys whether they planned to call any more witnesses Thursday afternoon. With no testimony scheduled for the rest of the day, Parker trudged off the stand, peering back at jurors as he made his way toward his attorney, Jess Marchese, who patted Parker’s left shoulder. The defendant appeared to choke back tears as he tapped the table in front of him with the end of a water bottle, before collecting papers in a folder and clutching a Bible, which he has pored over throughout the trial. Jurors exited the courtroom, and U.S. marshals escorted Parker toward a holding cell. He turned toward several people still gathered in the gallery, saluted them and slipped through the door. Marchese said outside of court that Navarro ruled Parker had violated a court order by describing what he saw. “We were trying to abide by the court’s order,” Marchese told a Las Vegas Review-Journal reporter. “The government objected, the court granted it, and I respect her ruling.” Parker was the first defense witness who testified before jurors. A day earlier, four people who attended the standoff gave “proffer” statements via Skype, but Navarro ruled that jurors would not be allowed to hear their testimony. Robert Anglen [excerpt] Parker was attempting to tell jurors what he saw during the standoff over a barrage of objections from prosecutors, who said he was violating court orders not to talk about what happened in the run-up to the standoff. Defense lawyers said Navarro called them to the front of the courtroom and told them Parker could testify only about what he saw during specific moments of the standoff. As soon as Marchese resumed questioning, prosecutors intensified objections, and that’s when lawyers said Navarro halted the testimony and shut down the courtroom for the day. Lawyers said after Navarro removed Parker from the stand, she asked them if they were prepared to call additional witnesses. Then she ordered the parties to return to court Monday morning and told jurors they could leave. [...] Navarro's rulings have severely limited defense arguments to avoid what she has described as jury nullification. Navarro has barred defendants from discussing why they traveled thousands of miles to join protesters at the Bundy Ranch. She will not allow them to testify about perceived abuses by federal authorities during the cattle roundup that might have motivated them to participate. Navarro also has restricted defendants from raising constitutional arguments, or mounting any defense based on their First Amendment rights to free speech and their Second Amendment rights to bear arms. In her rulings, Navarro has said those are not applicable arguments in the case. [...] US v Kleinman, 14-50585 (9th Cir, 16 Jun 2017) At 3, At 16:
You and Judge Judy are losers, accept it and move on to your next attack on duly sworn & fully informed juries, and the rule of law. Your spam bombs will not change the jury verdict, loser.
Your spam bombs will not change the jury verdict, loser. Ouch! Mr.Chan s/b embarrassed.
There are no replies to Comment # 13. End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNavarro cut off defendant Eric Parker mid-testimony, and she kicked him off the stand
#4. To: hondo68 (#1)
the judge did not allow the accused to testify in their own behalf, or their attorneys to adequately question their accusers, so they refused to find the defendants guilty.
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
the judge shut him down and struck his testimony
#7. To: hondo68 (#5)
The witnesses were limited and certain areas were out of bounds. A witness took the stand and almost immediately engaged in prohibited testimony. That is when the judge shut him down and struck his testimony.
#8. To: nolu chan (#7)
Eric Parker violated the rules three times before he was removed from the stand and his testimony was struck
#9. To: buckeroo (#8)
As a defendant of and about the federal charge of "crimes against the state," why didn't he have constitutional rights & privilege to defend himself in publick?
#10. To: nolu chan, fearful kangaroos (#9)
#11. To: hondo68 (#10)
The jury ain't buying your and Judge Judy's cock 'n bull story, and they declined to find any of the defendants guilty of any of the phony charges.
Judge cuts defendant’s testimony short in Bunkerville retrial
August 10, 2017 - 7:41 pm Drama erupts at Bundy retrial as judge scolds defendant, orders him off stand
The Republic | azcentral.com
Published 7:25 p.m. MT Aug. 10, 2017
Updated 10:53 a.m. MT Aug. 11, 2017 The panel held that the district court erred by instructing the jury that “[t]here is no such thing as valid jury nullification,” and that it “would violate [its] oath and the law if [it] willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to [it] in this case.” The panel held that because there is no right to jury nullification, the error was harmless.
Jury nullification occurs when a jury acquits a defendant, even though the government proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Powell, 955 F.2d 1206, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 1992). It is well established that jurors have the power to nullify, and this power is protected by “freedom from recrimination or sanction” after an acquittal. Merced v. McGrath, 426 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2005). However, juries do not have a right to nullify, and courts have no corresponding duty to ensure that juries are able to exercise this power, such as by giving jury instructions on the power to nullify. Id. at 1079–80. On the contrary, “courts have the duty to forestall or prevent [nullification], whether by firm instruction or admonition or . . . dismissal of an offending juror,” because “it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence.” Id.
#12. To: nolu chan, Fully Informed Juror Association, not guilty (#11)
yellow bullshit propaganda organization such as Fully Informed Juror Association (FIJA)
#13. To: hondo68, nolu chan (#12)
You and Judge Judy are losers, accept it and move on to your next attack on duly sworn & fully informed juries, and the rule of law.
Replies to Comment # 13.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]