Navarro cut off defendant Eric Parker mid-testimony, and she kicked him off the stand

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.

The jury determined that Trump's federal prosecutors failed to provide a coherent accounting of any crimes,

Gee,Trump was President when the Bundy Ranch was shut down and surrounded by armed feral agents?

Who knew?

You are turning into a real Drama Queen,Hondo.

Trump was President when the Bundy Ranch was shut down and surrounded by armed feral agents?

I said nothing of the kind. Donald Trump IS president now, and his Jeff Sessions DOJ was in charge of prosecuting the case in a Federal court. The federal prosecutors could have asked for the case to be dismissed, they did not. Or they could have worked towards making it a fair trial, but they did not.

They might even have gotten some convictions, by convincing the jury that they were being presented with all the facts, and that the defendants were getting a fair trial.

They chose instead to go along with the kangaroo court judge, and lost.

So yes, Trump was involved, and is also involved in upcoming cases against people with the name Bundy.

Is it too much to ask that they get a fair trial?

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.

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.

the judge shut him down and struck his testimony

Witness were not allowed to testify in their own behalf. Yes, that's correct.

Those claims are false.

Hondo has you nailed, pal. The witnesses were not allowed to testify based on their perception of reality or, in other words, their own behalf. Hence, the jury issued the verdicts which caused BACKFIRE against the police-state judge.

You lose.

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.

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.”

Eric Parker violated the rules three times before he was removed from the stand and his testimony was struck

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?

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.

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.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/judge-cuts-defendants-testimony-short-in-bunkerville-retrial/

Judge cuts defendant’s testimony short in Bunkerville retrial

By David Ferrara Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 10, 2017 - 7:41 pm

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.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/08/10/bundy-retrial-drama-judge-scolds-defendant-orders-him-off-stand/558082001/

Drama erupts at Bundy retrial as judge scolds defendant, orders him off stand

Robert Anglen
The Republic | azcentral.com
Published 7:25 p.m. MT Aug. 10, 2017
Updated 10:53 a.m. MT Aug. 11, 2017

[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,

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.

At 16:

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.

yellow bullshit propaganda organization such as Fully Informed Juror Association (FIJA)

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.

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.

Ouch! Mr.Chan s/b embarrassed.

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 silly, uninformed bullshit does not change the fact that your claim in #1, " the judge did not allow the accused to testify in their own behalf," remains complete, proven horse shit. The guy who was removed from the stand, Eric Parker, testified for nearly an hour and was finally removed from the stand when he violated the rules of the Court for the third time.

My relevant information did not change the jury verdict. Eric Parker remains charged with four counts. Perhaps you did not read that far.

And Dr. Roots and his FIJA argument was slapped down by the 9th Circuit in June 2017.

As the Court in Kleinman stated at 20-21,

Kleinman argues that the jury instructions were structural error, not subject to review for harmlessness, because they deprived him of his right to trial by jury. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 306–10 (1991). However, for the error to be structural, it must have deprived Kleinman of a constitutional right. See id. There is no constitutional right to jury nullification, so depriving a defendant of a jury that is able to nullify is plainly not a constitutional violation. Although an erroneous jury instruction that does not otherwise violate a defendant’s constitutional rights may rise to the level of constitutional error when it “so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,” the Supreme Court has defined such errors “very narrowly,” and noted that due process “has limited operation” “[b]eyond the specific guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72–73 (1991); see also Brewer v. Hall, 378 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting, in a habeas case, “no Supreme Court precedent holds that an antinullification instruction . . . violates due process”).

It is not fundamentally unfair for a defendant to be tried by a jury that is not fully informed of the power to nullify, or even that is stripped of the power to nullify, because there is no right to nullification. Although a jury should not be led to believe that jury nullification will result in punishment or an invalid acquittal, the court’s misstatement by implication does not rise to the level of denial of Kleinman’s due process rights. Thus, the error was not structural and was harmless.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/bundy-trial-nevada-verdict.html

[Excerpt]

Jurors could not reach a decision on two charges against Mr. Drexler and four charges for Mr. Parker, all related to an alleged assault on a federal officer while carrying a firearm. The United States District Attorney’s office in Nevada issued a statement on Tuesday saying that prosecutors had not decided if they would retry the men on those charges.

Parker, the one who was removed from the stand for repeatedly violating the rules of the Court, still faces FOUR CHARGES.

And while you seem incapable of reading court opinions, the one I provided, Kleinman, featured an amicus brief by Roger I. Roots, Livingston, Montana, for Amicus Curiae Fully Informed Jury Association. That is the same Dr. Roots who is quoted in the thread article.

Your nonsense will not change the status of jury nullification. You cannot argue jury nullification in court.

You and Eric Parker can feel like real winners. Eric Parker is ordered to report for another trial on September 25, 2017.

Eric Parker is ordered to report for another [THIRD TRIAL] trial on September 25, 2017.

The government just can't fuck off, can they?

The government just can't fuck off, can they?

Attorney General Jeff Sessions must be under orders from Presidents Ivanka & Chelsea to, get whitey.

Eric Parker is ordered to report for another [THIRD TRIAL] trial on September 25, 2017.

The government just can't fuck off, can they?

Fuck with the Feds, they fuck with you, only more so. When you concede defeat, there's always Belize.

yellow bullshit propaganda organization such as Fully Informed Juror Association (FIJA)

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.

Telling jurors about jury nullification is not illegal. ... Neither is telling jurors in court about jury nullification necessarily illegal either. Whether or not to permit such discussion is largely at the discretion of the judge, and while it is unusual for judges to do so, it does happen.

Is Jury Nullification Legal?

Yes, jury nullification is legal in the United States and many other countries as well. The rest of this section will discuss only the details with respect to the United States.

In the United States, it is illegal for a judge to direct a jury that it must deliver a Guilty verdict, jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts whatever their reasons may be, and a jury’s verdict of Not Guilty cannot be overturned.

Confusion over whether or not jury nullification is legal often comes from prosecutors, judges, and other detractors who wish to discourage its use. They will often strongly imply or outright falsely state—even in the instructions to the jury—that “there is no such thing as valid jury nullification” or that to engage in jury nullification would constitute a violation of the juror’s oath.

Fuck with the Feds, they fuck with you, only more so.

Is that why assholes like you worship them?

Eat a buffet of dicks fed.gov crotch-sniffer.

The next move is the should start working on the pols to get that judge removed from the bench.

The jury determined that Trump's federal prosecutors

Trump wasn't president when this started,shithead. Bathhouse Barry Obomber was president.

Since Trump lives in your head,where there is no doubt plenty of room,do you charge him rent?

If so,who counts the money for you?

Eric Parker is ordered to report for another [THIRD TRIAL] trial on September 25, 2017.

The government just can't fuck off, can they?

They can afford to try him 100 times if they want. After all,they are using public money to do it.

Eventually the defendants will run out of money to put up a defense,and they will be convicted after being bankrupted.

Big Massa Goobermint does NOT like losing.

Telling jurors about jury nullification is not illegal. ... Neither is telling jurors in court about jury nullification necessarily illegal either.

Jury nullification is legal. Telling jurors or prospective jurors about is not. Telling jurors about it from the witness stand gets you takne off the stand, gets your testimony struck, and may get you prosecuted. A lawyer doing so in azrgument may face sanctions, including disbarment.

Ignorance is not bliss in the courtroom.

Is that why assholes like you worship them?

If you want to be ignorant enough to be an asshole with a judge, or encourage others to do so, you may expect to be wearing your shorts around your ankles.

It is your choice. You seem to enjoy anal.

Trump is president, the prosecution's on him, dumbf'k!

The dumbfuck is the shithead that thinks the president chooses who goes on trial for what.

Know anybody like that,bubba?