Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial Wednesday morning in the Bundy trial in Las Vegas, Nevada, as a result of her concerns about Brady violations by the prosecution. Judge Navarro described the violations as “willful” failure to turn six key pieces of evidence over to the defense that would be helpful to their case.
The withheld evidence includes verification of several things the defense has argued contributed to the actions of the defendants during the 2014 armed standoff between the Bundys, their supporters, and Bureau of Land Management and law enforcement officers. The prosecution has repeatedly denied these things occurred.
One example was documentation of the presence of snipers near the Bundy ranch in the days leading up to the standoff. The Bundys repeatedly claimed that snipers were there, and this was one reason people, including militia members, came to Bunkerville to support them. Many claim that when they heard about the snipers, they feared violent action against the Bundys by law enforcement, and came to protect them.
The Bundys themselves have argued that they felt threatened because of the snipers and the aggressive posture of the authorities. They have said the Bureau of Land Management provoked them and their supporters into the armed standoff that occurred April 12, 2014 in Nevada. However, according to the judge, the prosecution has insisted there were no snipers present in previous trials.
Judge Navarro cited an “FBI log with entries that said ‘snipers were inserted’ and on standby outside the Bundy home. Three entries in the log mentioned snipers present, Navarro noted. Prosecutors claimed they were unaware of the log at first because it was kept on a thumb drive in a tactical vehicle.”
“The government is still responsible for information from the investigating agency. The FBI chose not to disclose it,” Navarro said.
Another example, an FBI report about a security camera, trained on the Bundy family home in Bunkerville, that was put up and monitored by the FBI. “The government falsely represented the camera that was on the Bundy house was incidental, not purposeful,” the judge said.
Also included were threat assessments of the Bundys that stated they weren’t considered violent, and documents from the Bureau of Land Management that show the Bundy’s trespassing cattle had caused no harm to the endangered desert tortoises.
As a result of these developments, “a mistrial in this case is the most suitable and only remedy available,” Judge Navarro said. A new trial may be held in February, but in the meantime, Judge Navarro will decide if it is a mistrial with or without prejudice. If she rules it is with prejudice, there won’t be another trial for the current charges against Cliven, Ryan, and Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne.
seeking redress 
I can e-mail you a Facebook conversation I had with a Fish and Game officer in Idaho, concerning the Bundy issue, during the Malheur standoff. (This is a guy I know and liked very much as a person. Still do I suppose). I was seeing posts on his Facebook page that I thought were very one sided, not well researched and unprofessionally provocative toward those who were sympathetic to the Hammonds and the Bundys. Through these conversations I was not comforted by what I was reading. I recognized the extent he and other officers are willing to go to condone these kinds of abuses against people he considers “welfare ranchers”. (I put part of that conversation into my third blog post on the Malheur situation under the heading “Perception Management”. The conversation we had in that case was concerning this officer’s post of the venereal speech that was given by Brett Kaiser of “Hill Top Solutions” about “welfare ranchers”. Hill Top Solutions” was representing the “Center for Western Priorities”. This company and NGO are among the, too numerous to count, marketing and perception management companies and globalist financed NGO’s that contract, or otherwise collaborate with government agencies to set policy agendas). The sad thing is, even when evidence of abuse is so unavoidably obvious, there will be no conversations within the public trust organizations about it. If these agencies were operating above there boards they would be talking to their employees and helping them to come to terms with what has taken place. I suspect there will be little to no fallout from this and no effort to become more transparent and honest with the public. I am hopeful, however, that this verdict will inspire some to move in that direction.
Yes, please, I would like to read that.
“I recognized the extent he and other officers are willing to go to condone these kinds of abuses against people he considers ‘welfare ranchers’.”–too many willing to condone it, and too many willing to ignore it or actively prevent wider awareness of it.
Like the FBI choosing not to disclose the logs mentioning the snipers or the camera. Or, attempting not to disclose the shots fired by an FBI agent the night Finicum was killed.