Did the feds botch the Bundy case?
Scott Martelle
... Armed and angry, the activists seized the property to protest imprisonment of two ranchers convicted of setting fires that spread to federal land. The protest quickly blossomed into a challenge of the federal governments right to federal land, during which the occupiers blatantly violated laws against possessing firearms in such a facility.
Thats not a theory cooked up by a prosecutor. The seven defendants acknowledged in court that that was exactly what they had done. During the occupation, they appeared in news photos with firearms plainly visible, shot off rounds at the compound, and some vowed to fight if federal agents sought to regain control of the federal facility. Eleven others involved in the takeover have already pleaded guilty.
Yet a jury found brothers Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five others not guilty of conspiracy charges arising from the occupation. Though as one juror is reported to have said, that doesnt mean the jury found them innocent. The problem, the juror said, was the federal prosecutor failed to make the case that what occurred at the wildlife refuge was, indeed, a conspiracy, as it charged.
It should be known that all 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove 'conspiracy' in the count itself and not any form of affirmation of the defense's various beliefs, actions or aspirations, the anonymous juror told the Oregonian in an email, adding that after the verdict was read the jurors met with the judge and pressed her on why the prosecution went the conspiracy route in the first place ...
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-bundy-oregon-malheur-20161028-story.html
PJMcK
(21,916 posts)Lochloosa
(16,018 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Starting with jury selection.
Ford_Prefect
(7,817 posts)White Privilege and Gun Culture excused the Bundy gang and absolved them of "conspiracy". If they had been Black or Native American or college students they would have had a very different reception and fate. Because they were white middle class Americans with weapons no one thought they were dangerous enough to arrest. Someone once said the Bundys held a tailgate party that ran long and it seems the jury felt that was the level of coordination within the group.
It should be known that all 12 jurors felt that this verdict was a statement regarding the various failures of the prosecution to prove 'conspiracy' in the count itself and not any form of affirmation of the defense's various beliefs, actions or aspirations, the anonymous juror told the Oregonian in an email, adding that after the verdict was read the jurors met with the judge and pressed her on why the prosecution went the conspiracy route in the first place.
Because, the juror said they were told, it would have resulted in the toughest sentence.
We were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind, the juror wrote. It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.
In fact, the juror suggested, the government was overconfident in its case.
The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, the juror wrote, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof.
******************
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)That was a must read for me.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)the question should be- was it intentional, or are they just fuck ups?
Nitram
(22,663 posts)jmowreader
(50,447 posts)The LAPD and the crime lab contaminated the evidence in that case so badly the only thing the jury had left was "well, we are pretty sure he did it." You can't send someone to prison for the rest of his life on "pretty sure."
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)They did this because the actual charges (due to the way the law was written) were pretty weak -- a misdemeanor, in fact.
So, they swung for the fences, and struck out.