Federal prosecutors to appeal dismissal of charges in Nevada Bundy case

_20190124_165750

According to court documents filed yesterday in the US Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit, federal prosecutors have been authorized to appeal the dismissal of charges in the Nevada Bundy case.  The charges against Cliven, Ryan and Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne were dismissed with prejudice by Judge Gloria Navarro on January 8, 2018 due to Brady violations by the prosecutors.

The document filed yesterday is a request by the prosecution for a 14-day delay in filing its opening brief for an appeal.  The document states “undersigned counsel advises the Court and the defendants that the review process is complete and the Solicitor General has authorized the government’s appeal.”

Prosecutors filed a motion requesting the Court reconsider its orders to dismiss the charges on February 8, 2018.  The district court denied that motion on July 3, 2018 and the US Attorney’s office reported that decision to the appellate section of the Department of Justice’s criminal division.  The US Solicitor General then began the process of deciding whether to appeal the decision, according to court documents.

Cliven Bundy’s lawyer, Larry Klayman, has filed motions opposing the extension of time.  He writes, “…any continuing appeal would have no factual or legal bases to succeed and thus be wholly frivolous and is intended only to continue to harass, vindictively inflict more severe emotional distress upon and financially ruin…” Cliven Bundy and his co-defendants.

The prosecution states in its request for delay that it will file its opening brief on or before February 6, 2019.

Advertisements

Prosecutors have filed a motion requesting judge to reconsider decision to dismiss with prejudice the charges in Bundy case

Katie Aguilera

On February 7, 2018, federal prosecutors filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its orders to dismiss with prejudice the superseding indictment against Cliven, Ryan, and Ammon Bundy, and Ryan Payne.

According to the 29-page motion, “the Court erred when it dismissed the indictment with prejudice on the ground that the Government failed to disclose information that could be used only to support non-cognizable and unsupportable defenses, or arguably rebut three alleged overt acts.”  Additionally, it argues, “to the extent the Court’s dismissal with prejudice is predicated on the materiality of the late-disclosed evidence to defendant’s theories of ‘self-defense, provocation, and intimidation,’ it is in error.  Because these theories are not cognizable on the undisputed facts, they cannot form the basis of a Brady violation.”

The prosecution suggests that rather than dismissing all charges, dismissing the counts related to the Court’s interpretation of Brady violations would be a less drastic remedy.  They argue that the dismissal with prejudice “has major ramifications for all public lands law enforcement officers,” and would “encourage the defendants, their supporters, and the public to disrespect the law and the lawful orders of the courts.”

The case against the Bundys and Ryan Payne ended in a mistrial December 20, 2017, and Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed the case with prejudice on January 8, 2018.

In a separate filing, the prosecution asked to dismiss with prejudice all counts in the superseding indictment against the four remaining defendants facing trial for the April, 2014 Nevada standoff.  Those four are Dave and Mel Bundy, Joseph O’Shaughnessy, and Jason Woods.

*****************

If you would like to support my work, please click here.

Judge dismisses case with prejudice in Las Vegas

Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed the case against Cliven, Ryan, and Ammon Bundy and Ryan Payne with prejudice this morning.  The judge cited the Brady violations by the prosecution that led to the trial ending in a mistrial in December as one reason for the dismissal.  This means the defendants cannot be retried for the charges they were indicted for.

Bundy trial in Nevada ends in mistrial

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.