Scroll-down for Previous Developments.
Friday, October 28, 2016:
Juror #4 Issues a Statement via The Oregonian/OregonLIve: Government Failed to Meet Its Burden of Proof.
“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.
“All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation,” he wrote.
“But 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 Marylhurst student wrote. “It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.”
“Inference, while possibly compelling, proved to be insulting or inadequate to 12 diversely-situated people as a means to convict,” the juror wrote. “The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof.”
Thursday, October 27, 2016:
BREAKING NEWS: 4:15 p.m. PDT — ALL DEFENDANTS ACQUITTED — FOUND NOT GUILTY — of ALL Criminal Conspiracy & Gun Charges. More details later.
IN FURTHER BREAKING NEWS, it has been reported now by multiple sources that in the chaos in the courtroom following reading of the verdict, Attorney Marcus Mumford was attacked, tackled and tased by U.S. Marshalls. More details on that later too.
According to multiple sources, when Attorney Marcus Mumford attempted to argue that his client, Ammon Bundy, was acquitted and should be released as Defendant David Fry will be, multiple U.S. Marshalls took Mumford to the ground and tased him in the courtroom.
“It just blows my mind,’ that a lawyer would be taken to the ground and Tased in a courtroom.” — Margie Paris, UofO law professor
As the Oregon Standoff Trial jury is starting deliberations from scratch, the Defendants have filed a request to have an additional jury instruction given regarding Second Amendment Rights, that they had previously requested. According to the language of the motion, this new request was filed based on the defendants’ assertion that the Government breached the assurances it had given both to the court and to the Defendants prior to its rebuttal case and closing arguments that it would not mention “Militia” or make any attempt to tie the so-called “Militia” and their guns and actions to the defendants.
When Judge Brown instructed the newly-configured jury to begin deliberations from scratch, including selection of a new foreperson, she told them to completely disregard any previous deliberations as if they had never happened. She declined, however, to however, to give the jury Defendants’ newly re-requested Second Amendment Instruction.
Otherwise, while waiting for further developments, let’s explore some of the comments that have puportedly been popping up on MSM comment boards, including in response to Maxine Bernstein’s articles on The Oregonian/OregonLive. Someone passed along a comment with notes about these purported comments, which raise all sorts of questions:
“Comments [on OregonLive comment boards about] max bernstien’s article 10/25/16 9:34 pm by @I AmBaady & @hampton “….that wasn’t our job or the judges…lt was the attorney’s job” 5:21 am 10/26/16 & at 4:19am “we have a college student (juror)….this kid probably overreacted” & at 4:16am “sure wish the jury had not sprung a leak”
“Wasn’t our job”? “We have a college student (juror)”? — Who’s posting this stuff? Members of the jury? Court staff? Prosecution? “Sure wish the jury had not sprung a leak“? Is there more to that story?
Is there much more to the whole equation than meets the eye.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016: One juror dismissed. Alternate appointed, and deliberations set to start over from scratch
The jury in the Oregon Standoff Trial began deliberations last Thursday (Oct. 20, 2016).
Yesterday, separate jurors passed notes to Judge Brown expressing concerns and asking questions, indicating that the jury was in deadlock, and that one of the jurors, a former BLM employee, who had underreported his biases during voir dire examination, had expressed an admitted bias at the outset of deliberations, but nothing had been done about it.
According to OPB’s Conrad Wilson:
“The big takeaway from these jury questions: there’s some doubt about the government’s case.” — Conrad Wilson, Oregon Public Broadcasting
This whole scenario also raises all kinds of questions about the possible tainting of the rest of the jury by Juror No. 11’s admitted biases, and whether or not he may have presented addtional information to the jury beyond the scope of the evidence presented during the trial. The rest of the story is that in addition to being a former BLM employee, Juror No. 11 is also a current law enforcement officer, with the department of corrections. How did he get past Voir Dire questioning? Obvious masking of his background, connections, and biases? Possible broader tainting of the rest of the jury? Lots of questions, but here’s one of the biggest: Why isn’t the Mainstream Media telling the whole story?
After much pushing with plenty of case law to support the motion, despite considerable resistance, Judge Brown finally dismissed Juror No. 11, forcing her to randomly select an alternate juror. Alternate Juror #18 was selected. Judge Brown then dismissed the jury for the day. Jury deliberations will start over again FROM SCRATCH, beginning tomorrow.
Never a dull moment!
RANGE / RANGEFIRE! — Addressing Issues Facing the West / Spreading America’s Cowboy Spirit Beyond the Outback