Judge’s rulings lead to tense moments in Bundy case in Vegas

BY KEN RITTER Associated Press AUGUST 14, 2017

Restrictions placed by a federal judge on what defendants can say about being at Cliven Bundy’s ranch in April 2014 are leading to tense moments in the Las Vegas retrial of four men accused of wielding assault-style weapons to stop federal agents from rounding up cattle belonging to the anti-government figure.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro refused Monday to order a mistrial sought by the defense attorney for Eric Parker, a defendant who Navarro ordered off the witness stand last week before telling the jury to disregard his testimony.

Such a dramatic step involving a defendant in the presence of a jury is unusual and might draw scrutiny from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, said Robert Draskovich, a Las Vegas lawyer who said he had never heard of such a move in more than two decades practicing in federal courts. Draskovich is not involved in the Bundy case.

Outside the presence of the jury on Monday, Navarro said she hadn’t wanted to order Parker to step down.

She told prosecutors, defense attorneys and a crowded court gallery that she thought Parker was trying to invite jury nullification of charges, and deliberately “continuing to make a mockery” of court rulings she handed down before the retrial that limited the scope of defense presentations to what the men saw and did, not what they felt or why they acted.

A jury in April found two co-defendants guilty of some charges, but it failed to reach verdicts for Parker, Scott Drexler, Steven Stewart and Richard Lovelien.

Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and two other defendants are due for trial later this year. Six others, including two other Bundy sons, are slated for trial next year.

Navarro ruled that defendants can’t argue this time that they were acting in self-defense or in the defense of other protesters.

They can’t say they were motivated to drive to southern Nevada from Idaho and Montana after hearing about scuffles involving unarmed Bundy family members and Bureau of Land Management agents using dogs and stun guns.

They can’t refer to Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval and other elected officials criticizing federal agents for creating what the Republican governor called an “atmosphere of intimidation” in the days before the standoff.

They can’t point to so-called “First Amendment zone” corrals set up for protesters well away from the Bundy ranch; they can’t cite claims of infringement on free-speech and Second Amendment rights; and they can’t refer to the decades in prison they might face if they’re convicted.

“Just because law enforcement is pointing a gun doesn’t mean you get to point one back,” Navarro said Monday.

Parker was famously photographed during the April 2014 standoff flat on his stomach on the pavement of an Interstate 15 overpass, looking down an AK-47-style rifle toward heavily armed federal agents in a dry river bed below.

Drexler is seen in a similar photo, and images show Steven Stewart carrying an assault-style rifle, but not aiming it.

Richard Lovelien also had a rifle, but his lawyer, Shawn Perez, said there is no photograph in evidence showing him pointing it at anyone.

Defense attorneys say their clients are being unfairly and unconstitutionally denied a chance to explain for jurors what they saw and heard and why they went to the Bundy ranch, where they are accused of conspiracy, weapon, assault on a federal agent and other charges.

“We need to be able to defend ourselves, to rebut, to impeach against accusations,” Parker’s attorney, Jess Marchese, protested during morning-long arguments held outside the presence of the jury now in a fourth week of testimony. “That’s why we’re here.”

Drexler was expected to take the stand in his defense, but Stewart and Lovelien said they won’t do so.

Posted in (AP) Associated Press, Bundy Ranch, Court, News.

Constitutionalist, Patriot, Constitutional Activist, Concerned Member of the Community. Learning, Watching, Working, Promoting and Sharing.

5 Comments

  1. I don’t think it is correct to characterize Bundy and the BLM protesters as anti-government when in fact they are pro constitutional government and anti corruption also in lieu of the fact they were standing side-by-side the county sheriff who ordered the BLM out of his jurisdiction.

  2. I believe if you do your resources you will find the BLM is not any thing to do with government unless selling helium that is BLMs business to the federal bankers that are only claiming to be a government. United States Inc. is as far as one can get from being a government. Corporations using the clever sound alike look alike name is nothing but a private foreign bank that United States of America dept of Defence has forced it to bankrupt and insolvency. Bundys should receive a metal for enforcing the law without any violence. This being why they are being swept under the carpet to keep them exposing the facts. The whole BAR is just a mafia.

  3. Is it a jury trial if the jury is not allowed to hear what happened?

    I know it happens all the time in the United States, but it is still a travesty of justice.

  4. When a judge grants herself more power (and is allowed to do so) than the individual on trial is protected against, then whats even the point of due process? Haven’t we then effectively lost the Bill of Rights, the inalienable Rights of the individual as specified in the Declaration of Independence and have minimized our society to a draconian and totalitarian regime akin to Stalin’s Russia or Kim Jong Un’s NK?

    Thanks federal judiciary, for acting in absolute treason against the very people who created you.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.