It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
...all defendants Not Guilty of Count One.
The official forms are a part of the trial documents and cannot be altered or removed from the record. These documents are given to the jury for their deliberations. If a mistake is made on these documents, the jury foreman is to destroy that copy and request a new form.
There was a very interesting discussion between several people that was broadcast live. The points were made that this could be a case of “implied acquittal”. Following the case of Brazzel v. Washington, 484 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007), the court observed that:
“The doctrine of implied acquittal states that when a jury convicts on a lesser alternate charge and fails to reach a verdict on the greater charge–without announcing any splits or divisions and having had a full and fair opportunity to do so–the jury’s silence on the second charge is an implied acquittal.
A verdict of implied acquittal is final and bars a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. Putting a defendant in jeopardy a second time is not necessarily harmless error or moot, even if the defendant is only convicted of the lesser crime, because the Double Jeopardy Clause is cast in terms of the risk or hazard of trial and conviction, not of the ultimate legal consequences of the verdict.”
This begs the question of whether or not the jury was genuinely deadlocked on the conspiracy charges? It also asks, “Did Judge Navarro know about the verdict before she ruled on the mistrial?”
After the mistrial was announced Defense attorney’s in the case were given opportunity to speak with jurors who told them they felt the government had brought forward way too much evidence that went nowhere (proved nothing), and that some of it, along with a good deal of their witnesses, were not to be believed.
According to one alternate juror I spoke with, it was not lost on the jury that the government was working very hard to keep damaging information from them. The Juror also stated that Myhre’s final closing rebuttal had very little impact on the Jury in the end.
One alternate juror said, everyone on the jury already knew about Dan Love —
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: flatbush71
Well said. Thank you for saying it.
Did he owe the money or not?
Did he owe the money or not?
Very technically he may not.
The original grazing permits were cancelled and nobody knew who to pay.
If I remember, the "money owed" are fines for not getting the cattle off the land.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Boadicea
Then I agree with you. It sounds like more laws were broken enforcing the law than were ever broken by Bundy!
originally posted by: flatbush71
Two defendants were found guilty on lesser charges.
That will be appealed, and this whole mess will thrown open for review.