Questions Raised of Verdict "Manipulating" by Judge in Bundy Bunkerville Trial

On Monday, the 24th of April, it was reported that the jury had deadlocked on all charges for 4 defendants, and returned guilty verdicts for only two defendants, and on only some of the charges. The judge declared a mistrial and set the date of June 26 for re-trial for the four defendants.

But court watchers in the courtroom, and the jury forms themselves, indicate this isn't the whole truth.

Page 2 of the 11-page jury verdict form is clearly checked -- and then crossed out --

...all defendants Not Guilty of Count One.

To clarify, "Count One" is the conspiracy charge. The jury verdict form continues to individually declare each and every defendant "Not Guilty" with clear check marks -- all then crossed out.

Huh??? If they were "hopelessly deadlocked," then how could they reach a unanimous decision of "Not Guilty" and prepare the verdict form accordingly? Was it just a mistake by the jury? Doubtful. According to at least one self-admitted not-a-lawyer source, the jury verdict form cannot be altered by anyone for any reason. If a mistake is made, then a new form is required to be filled out.

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.

So who crossed out the designated "Not Guilty" verdict for each and every defendant? And why? Under what legal authority???

What makes this even more disturbing is that (according to the same source) the jurors were told in jury instructions that if they found a defendant not guilty by unanimous vote of Count One, the conspiracy charge, then the defendant was automatically not guilty of the remaining charges. In that case, they would not need to specify a verdict for the remaining charges -- and they did not. They did, however, seem to ask about exactly this during deliberations, although the judge sealed the question so it can only be inferred from the ensuing discussion and response. And it would be a relevant question as this is an established legal practice known as "implied acquittal":

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?”

It could be that the jury thought they were acquitting the four defendants on all counts. They certainly had no problem finding two of the defendants on some of the charges and marking the verdict form accordingly. But we don't know. I don't think we can know. The identities of the jurors has been sealed. I have not heard that has changed. I cannot find anything saying any of the jurors have spoken out publicly. It's quite possible that when the judge sealed their names, she sealed their lips also. Perhaps they cannot speak until the judge releases them to speak.

But I did find something weird, so take it for what its worth at this point, which is a cached page from Guerilla Media Network and the Pete Santilli Show, stating the defense attorneys did speak to the jurors after their verdict:

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 —

Source: A Deadly Game: The Jury didn’t hear what really happened at Bundy Ranch

The article goes on to talk about "What the Government Kept Hidden from the Jury" and the many abuses by various federal agents. It's not an easy read when it comes to the BLM abuse of the cattle and how they suffered and even died. It's the sign of depraved hearts and it scares me that they're in charge. It should scare everyone. Ammon Bundy made a very good point in one of the videos I watched: There is no doubt that this case will set legal precedents. Whatever the government can get away with against the Bundys et al will be case law and will apply to anyone and everyone who protests and challenges the U.S. government going forward... the (other) BLM, Occupy, Antifa, Trumpsters, Tea Party, etc. better be careful what they wish for the Bundys, because they may very well get it for themselves.

Links to all eleven pages of the jury verdict forms can be found here (at the end of the article): Did Judge Navarro Manipulate The Verdicts?

There is much more -- some worth hearing and some not -- in this hour plus video:

a reply to: Boadicea

Every charge should have been thrown out.
There was no standing at the Federal level to justify a single charge.

There is no difference between this trial and the mock trials held in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

You people better wake up, the clock is running out.

Buck

Here the meat and violation of the 6th.

" Prosecutor Steven Myhre went to great lengths to keep certain information from reaching the ears of the Jury. For instance, motions were filed before the trial began asking Judge Gloria Navarro to not allow defense attorneys to talk about Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Special Agent in Charge, Daniel P. Love’s horrendous record of abuse before during or after the protest, that led to his mysterious disappearance because of misconduct. The document also stated, as does many other motions filed by the Prosecutor’s office, that Prosecutor Myhre feared Defense Attorney’s would turn the trial around and effectively put Dan Love and the BLM on trial. When she refused to do that Myhre went another route and decided not to call Love to the stand at all.

Defense attorneys were incensed for a number of reasons. The first of which they argued, was their client’s right to face and question their accuser as outlined in the “confrontation clause” of the Sixth Amendment. The defense threatened, that if the Prosecution failed to call Love to the stand then they would meet the Sixth Amendment obligation by calling him for the defense.

After a valiant argument by the defense team, Navarro still granted the Prosecution’s request and forbid the Defense from calling the agent in charge to testify. Based on her belief in obscure case law, she speculated the court had discretion to fore-go the Constitution if she felt they were going to call Dan Love for the sole purpose of impeaching him. From that point on, no derogatory statements or information that made Dan Love look bad was allowed.

This ruling by Navarro had a staggering effect on the information the defense could and could not bring forward to reveal the true nature of Dan Love’s conduct on April 12th, 2014. Nothing spoke louder about how far Navarro and Myhre would go to keep the information about Dan Love from the Jury than when Defendant Todd Engel, who was representing himself, asked a Government witness — “Isn’t it true that Daniel P. Love is now under investigation for misconduct?”
"

redoubtnews.com...







I've been way to busy on serious matters to follow this trial , but one of the Indictments was charging Interference of Interstate Commerce by Extortion.

The Appellates are going to rip them a new one on this.

UnFB !

a reply to: flatbush71

Well said. Thank you for saying it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: flatbush71

Well said. Thank you for saying it.

I don't get it. Are the police good or bad?

"The 2014 Bundy standoff was an armed confrontation between supporters of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and law enforcement following a 20-year legal dispute in which the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) had obtained court orders directing Bundy to pay over $1 million in withheld grazing fees for Bundy's use of federally owned land adjacent to Bundy's ranch in southeastern Nevada."

Did he owe the money or not?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Did he owe the money or not?

That's the very first legal issue that should have been Adjudicated.

The land in question was being sold to the Chinese for a solar farm.

And just gets worse from there.

Buck

a reply to: dfnj2015

Did he owe the money or not?

As I understand it --

Yes, he owed grazing fees and fines. The amount is disputed and the controlling authority is disputed. Bundy refuses to recognize federal authority over his land in accordance with the original terms of the grazing/water rights. Bundy claims the feds have violated/ignored his grazing and water rights. Courts have ruled both for and against Bundy. Bundy refuses to pay his fees to the Feds; but Bundy has tried to pay his fees to the county or state (maybe both -- I'm not remembering right now. Sorry!)

On the day in question, from which these charges came, the BLM was ordered to cease and desist the cattle roundup. The agent in charge, Dan Love, refused to do so. Instead, telling the other agents that the Bundys et al were going to attack them that night -- basically scaring the hell out of them to provoke a conflict. No such attack came. When Bundy went to round up what was left of his cattle the next morning, he had been informed that the feds' operation was called off, so he had no reason to even expect a confrontation -- much less a violent confrontation.

Dan Love and his BLM have a long, well-documented history of intimidation, bullying and abuse of the Bundys, his former neighbors (the feds have driven most of them away and appropriated their land), and all across the southwest! Dan Love is currently under investigation by the Inspector General's office for abuses not related to this case, including intimidation and bullying of subordinate agents -- many of which were witnesses in this case against the Bundys. Among the many many rights denied the defendants, they were not allowed to "face their accuser" nor call "compulsory witnesses" because the prosecution refused to call him as a witness, and the judge refused to let the defense call him as a witness.

I can't defend the Bundys' actions, but nothing he did deserves this federal persecution. I am more outraged by the blatant abuse and violations of rights by the Feds, by the prosecutors, by the courts, by the media -- and everyone else whose job it is to protect and defend these rights, but are turning a blind eye. It's shameful and unconscionable.

a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you for chiming in -- that's how I understand it too.

Very technically he may not.

The original grazing permits were cancelled and nobody knew who to pay.

Which Bundy (rightfully) claims is a violation of his original water/grazing rights, if I'm remembering correctly.

If I remember, the "money owed" are fines for not getting the cattle off the land.

That, and "late" payment fees, I believe.

a reply to: flatbush71

The defense has the ability to raise issues dealing with the prosecutions case during the trial. If a judge denies the defense that ability it can create grounds for an appeal if their clients were convicted.

As for the implied acquittal bs I dont buy it. It is something that would have been spelled out in the jury instructions before they were allowed to start deliberations.

Challenging the ability of one side to raise an issue during the trial is no where near hiding evidence from the defense. That would be a brady violation.

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!

I can tell this, Mogul is getting deep into BLM and this will have to work its way thru the courts.

I also believe the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th has / will be violated if they are prosecuted again on the same charges.

Judge Navarro read the acquittal verdict ( On the main charges ) and then decided to declare a mistrial rather than letting it stand.

This thing has gotten way to big to be ignored now, some day maybe, just maybe, a little justice will prevail.


Buck

Here's the Jury Tally, what's your opinion ?

a reply to: flatbush71

Double jeopardy does not apply to mistrial verdicts. Also people need to realize the implied acquittal idea also does not apply.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm not arguing implied acquittal and you should know that.

I'll take my chances on appeal and that the acquittal will stand.

And that makes it double jeopardy.

Buck

a reply to: flatbush71

The defense cant challenge an acquittal and neither can the prosecution (nor can they challenge a mistrial verdict).

No double jeopardy exists.

a reply to: Boadicea

If there is tampering, and it can't be discovered the how and the why, this is grounds for an immediate mistrial with no retrial.

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!

That's exactly why I have such a problem with it! I can't say Bundy acted appropriately, but what does one do when the authorities aren't acting appropriately? The ones with all the power -- and the guns? When you have everything to lose, and you have no good options, what do you do? I sure don't have any better ideas. But I wish I did -- that's pretty much where we're all getting, one way or another.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thats the purpose of the judicial system.

Two defendants were found guilty on lesser charges.
That will be appealed, and this whole mess will thrown open for review.

Buck

what a tangled web we weave,...looks like the government really botched this attempted setup.

gee, I wonder why so many americans don`t trust their government.

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.

Buck

The mistrial invalidates the jury's finding (assuming the 2 convicted were part of the mistrial group).