Bundy Jurors speak: arrogance of prosecution and predisposed to acquit

[underpants]

Juror explains Bundy acquittals: Arrogant prosecutors failed to prove armed takeover was conspiracy


Juror 11, who was dismissed after defense attorneys complained, insisted during an interview Friday that he was not biased from his time working for the Bureau of Land Management or as a corrections officer, but he knows he was the only juror leaning toward convicting the militants.

Nickens said he polled the jurors Oct. 20, shortly after deliberations began, and found the other jurors had already made up their minds to acquit — and he was not sure he could be swayed in that direction.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/juror-explains-bundy-acquittals-arrogant-prosecutors-failed-to-prove-armed-takeover-was-conspiracy/

Prosecutors had alleged that Ammon Bundy and another militant, Ryan Payne, had conspired to take over the federal facility as early as Nov. 5, but Juror 4 said he and other jury members were persuaded by defense arguments that they should not confuse the “effect” of the occupation from the “intent” of the occupiers.

He also said jury members appreciated testimony from Ammon Bundy and four other defendants and were insulted by the perceived arrogance of the prosecutors.

[geek tragedy]

1. they thought it was arrogant for prosecutors to ask them to infer intent from conduct.

“Inference, while possibly compelling, proved to be insulting or inadequate to 12 diversely-situated people as a means to convict,” the juror wrote.

[underpants]

3. Thank you. I could only post 4 paragraphs.

It appears from this article that they were set on acquittal.

[Yo_Mama]

18. It is - by charging this way, the prosecution made intent a necessary item to be proved.

Each element that must exist for a particular charge must be proved in court.

"Conspiracy" necessarily focuses on intent. There is no conspiracy without collaboration with the intent to do whatever the following item is.

Consider this: if you and your four hundred best buddies decide to get up the best flash mob ever to meet outside Congress in DC, and your carefully choreographed one hour dance draws a huge mob, thus impeding traffic into Congress itself, may you be arrested and tried for conspiracy to impede Congressional business? The answer is, under the law, "No". They can arrest you, and they can try you, but I don't think you can get a jury to convict.

The normal personnel who clean and order various public spaces during the Occupy protests were impeded from their duties as well. But were those occupations a criminal conspiracy to impede public servants? NO. And if I were on a jury, I'd vote "Not Guilty" on such a charge unless some real evidence was presented to back the charge up.

If the prosecution chose to bring such a charge, the prosecution should have taken all the elements very seriously, and carefully presented evidence as to each step and their interpretation of that evidence.

And I'll quote from this article, linked elsewhere:
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html

The full-time Marylhurst University business administration student was the juror who had sent a note to the judge on the fourth day of the initial jury's deliberations in the case, questioning the impartiality of a fellow juror, No. 11, who the judge bounced from the jury a day later.

"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,'' Juror 4 wrote Friday in a lengthy email to The Oregonian/OregonLive.

[geek tragedy]

22. they most certainly intended to oust federal officials from the reserve

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

how on god's green earth was their intent to oust the federal government entirely from that reserve not intent to prevent federal officials from performing their job duties at the reserve?


Also, your flash mob analogy would be appropriate only if they took in an arsenal of automatic weapons and occupied the interior of the capital building.

[Yo_Mama]

23. Apparently - judging from what the jurors are saying - the prosecution

didn't bother to present specific evidence as to intent, and the defense put their perps on the stands for hours to talk about their intent.

I will use the same example again:
When Occupy protesters occupied parks, etc, they displaced the normal personnel. But their actions were not, as far as I know, performed with that intent and purpose, and intent and purpose is a very important element in a conspiracy charge. Of course, they intended to disrupt. It was a protest. And the disruption would have the necessary effect of blocking some normal personnel. But I doubt any jury would ever convict on such a charge without specific evidence that the protesters moved in with that purpose in mind. A "conspiracy to" charge places the burden on the prosecution to PROVE or SHOW the purpose and intent. It's unwise to expect a jury to assume it.

The jurors who are speaking out are saying very specific things about what they heard and didn't hear in court, and apparently thought the defendants were guilty and should have been thrown in jail for a considerable length of time.
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html

He said many of the jurors questioned the judge about why the federal government chose the "conspiracy charge.'' He said he learned that a potential alternate charge, such as criminal trespass, wouldn't have brought as significant a penalty.

The charge of conspiring to impede federal employees from carrying out their official work through intimidation, threat or force brings a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

"We all queried about alternative charges that could stick and were amazed that this 'conspiracy' charge seemed the best possible option,'' Juror 4 said.

[geek tragedy]

24. intent != motive

if a person shoots someone to collect an insurance policy that means they intended to kill them.

They intended to prevent federal officials from doing their jobs at the reserve. That's why they took the guns. their plan necessarily involved taking specific actions to prevent federal officials from doing their job.

Not to mention the other property crimes they committed.

This also seems like juror misconduct:

He said many of the jurors questioned the judge about why the federal government chose the "conspiracy charge.'' He said he learned that a potential alternate charge, such as criminal trespass, wouldn't have brought as significant a penalty.

[Yo_Mama]

26. They talked to the judge after they had reached a verdict.

The fact that they questioned the judge means that they were convinced that people on trial were guilty of something.

I don't think they can be retried for this offense.

Not juror misconduct, just frustrated jurors.

[geek tragedy]

27. let's step back

this was a plot to use a show of armed force to oust federal game wardens in order to take over a federal facility

and the jurors are claiming there was no showing of intent to prevent those game wardens from doing their jobs. (not to mention weapons charges, etc etc)

motivated reasoning.

[Yo_Mama]

30. There were no federal personnel there when they moved in.

I believe this was a crime. But Wiki's timeline shows what I remembered - there were no personnel there at the time (they were told to leave and not come back by their superiors???).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge

I do remember something about some press statement that one of the biologists could come in.

What I don't know is whether the prosecution proved the elements of the case. Some members of the jury are apparently saying this WASN'T jury nullification.

I can imagine that the prosecutors effed up on this one.

[ZX86]

2. All that high flalutin'

big city, prosecutors showin' off all that fancy pants book learnin' and stuff. They think jus cuz they be usin' indoor toilets all the time they're better and smarter than anybody else. Well we showed 'em! We showed 'em real good!

[Yo_Mama]

21. Why don't you read this article, which does not support your comment at all?

Really read it, instead of just using this as an opportunity to flaunt your pet prejudices and stereotypes in public?

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html

Prosecutors have lost cases before through pure incompetence. This may be one of them.

[ZX86]

32. Spare me the details.

If these were Black people they would have been lucky to make it to a court room. Let alone get acquitted. Heard this same crap at the Zimmerman trial. Funny how jury instructions and specific charges always seem to favor White people and not minority ones. You and I both know with all circumstances being the same, if that was the New Black Panthers on trial and not the lily White Bundy Klan we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[snooper2]

4. Here is the link to the actual reported story Ripstory stole from

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html

[underpants]

10. Thanks. Much better story.

They deserve awards for their reporting on this whole thing.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. I don't understand how they could acquit on the charge of having

firearms on federal property. There were hours of videos with these people with guns at the refuge.

[malthaussen]

7. Ownership could not be proved.

Apparently, possession is not sufficient to create guilt under the charge, at least if one is pre-disposed to find any loophole to acquit in the first place.

-- Mal

[Skittles]

16. gun humpers

[tblue37]

6. I suspect this was jurry nullification by a sympathetic jury,

especially since the trial venue was far from where the people of the area were threatened or at least seriously inconvenienced by the armed, militant occupiers.

Heck, they had to close schools for a while because they were scared for their children!

[dembotoz]

8. at times we forget that justice is a local thing

have served on a couple of juries and i was very NOT impressed

what seems dog simple to us just is not rational is some places....
hell there are places in this land that is aok with polygamy.....

[malthaussen]

9. Puzzling, in a way.

It's not like the Bundys had a lot of support from the locals; to the contrary. Okay, so the venue was changed to provide a more "neutral" jury (it is to laugh), but it seems odd that they could find 12 people who favored the Bundys enough to acquit in the face of pretty plain evidence.

-- Mal

[haele]

12. Very easy. Especially if the defense was using "code" to determine who would be sympathetic or not.

Unless the prosecution would know the code words - or spent any time on the 'net looking up those "sovereign citizen" and "wise use" assholes, they'd just suppose those were normal "patriotic" citizens willing to do their duty that the defense had no problems with.
I'm surprised they let the guy who used to work for BLM in the jury pool, but the jurors sussed him out when it came to deliberations and had him kicked off pretty durn quick. That's when I knew the defense, as stupid as they appeared to normal people, had already stacked the jury with wing-nuts that could pass.

Portland may be "liberal" - well, at least weird; but the area around Portland can be very anti-progress, very anti-government, and willfully ignorant of reality and history. There are a lot of folks who are bemoaning the loss of their familiar way of life - especially since they were only forced to allow minorities equal rights during the 1960's.

I remember when I was a child in the 1960's, my parents commenting that Oregon used to be a sundown state, and it was finally nice to be able to go up to Crater Lake or the Seven Sisters to camp with a neighbor family who were a mixed marriage couple.

Haele

[malthaussen]

13. Interesting. It would indicate the prosecution failed to do its homework...

... maybe because they thought it would be a slam dunk.

I don't watch hoops very often, but I've seen slam dunks missed. Very embarrassing,

-- Mal

[0rganism]

15. jury pools are primarily drawn from the ranks of the retired

"knowing how to get out of jury duty" has been a prerequisite for working folk for quite a while.
when i got a jury summons and opted to take time off to honor it, my boss put me on his shit list ("well you can go if you feel like it's your civic duty (you slacking moron)&quot and i was looking for alternate employment within a year.
so that leaves us with those who don't need to work or apply for unemployment anymore -- the retired and the disabled. the disabled are fewer to begin with, so you're mostly getting the non-working: independently wealthy or retired. retired people skew older, and older people skew conservative.

so even in the liberal Portland area, juries are going to skew right wing.

it's also quite possible that the defense attorney did a far better job during jury selection.

[rockfordfile]

11. The jury was corrupt

[Warren DeMontague]

14. it sounds to me like the specific charges weren't well thought out.

either way, this wasn't handled well.

[0rganism]

17. agree on that point

prosecutors should have stuck with criminal trespass and vandalism to begin with.

[Paladin]

19. White guys in cowboy hats can get away with almost anything in the West. (nt)

[Buckeye_Democrat]

20. So if a white guy murders a black guy, and prosecutors try it as a hate crime, then...

... jury members who disagree with the "hate crime" designation might feel compelled to acquit on ALL charges, regardless of evidence?

Is that how it works now?

Sorry, but it's a load of crap!

[geek tragedy]

25. "he just wanted to make america great again." nt

[awoke_in_2003]

28. about the jurors

[avebury]

29. They should have gone after them for all the

destruction that they did to the place.

[Rex]

31. Well you cannot fix stupid.

[Takket]

33. conspiracy

so basically they are saying the event was to protest the Feds on "the people's land" and the government officials being locked out of the place was basically just a "side effect"?

i can buy the defense making that argument but it doesn't hold water with me, but there are things i don't get............

why did they acquit on the other charges, regardless of their feelings about conspiracy?

why was criminal tresspass not offered? not sure how it works in the justice system but plenty of times i've seen "murder one" be tried but the conviction is for "manslaughter" because the juror believes murder one has not been proven but that the death was wrongful.