Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ammon-bundy-long-testimony-swayed-ore-jury-acquit-article-1.2848300

In part:

The leader of the armed Oregon standoff sat on the stand for more than three days, laying out his views on the Constitution, the federal government and the duty of man in his plain-spoken way .

It was Ammon Bundy’s 10 hours of testimony that likely won over jurors in a trial that concluded with seven people being acquitted Thursday of federal conspiracy and weapons charges, one legal expert said.

“It gave Ammon a chance to explain his side,” Lewis & Clark Law Professor Tung Yin told the Daily News. “And apparently the jury seemed to agree. I think it’s really hard to see this as anything other than jury nullification.”
...
“The fact that they acquitted on everything must be representative of some kind of mistrust of the government or a symbolic protest, or anger at the government,” he said of the jurors.

Even if you disagree. They got a fair trial and that's that.

I wonder if the sex toys and drum of lube where used as evidence?

The general sentiment seems to be that because they got off the Federal charges, they'll get off the Nevada charges.

If a jury lets you off with one blatant crime, who's to say they won't acquit again?

Edit: my knowledge of Nevada state law, and American law in general is not that good, so be kind if I've made a major blunder here

Were his relatives and friends all the jurors??

Screw it, whatever. Let's go all Mad Max

 Ouze wrote:
what the actual feth

these guys literally filed motions of gibberish, and skated




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Among other things, these chucklefarks got off on "possessing a firearm in a federal facility" despite there being approximately 500 bajillion hours of live video of them doing exactly that. Words fail me.

Also that one dude in a "sniper's nest" pointing the weapon at the officials. Is that dude among those charged?

If that's not brandishing...

 Ahtman wrote:
I wonder if they would have been acquitted if they were Black/Latino/Asian/Ingenious.

of course not, we only need to look at the peaceful protest going on right now in dakota to see that.

this is my favorite quote from cnn
"As the standoff continued, police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd. "

talk about some media bias there, they deployed bean bag rounds, in other words they were shooting protesters with bean bag rounds while arresting 117 protesters.

the dakota protesters should arm themselves, and call for the government to be overthrown, that way the police will let them go home from time to time to resupply and stand off without bothering the protesters.

If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.

True, but surely the judge has to direct things a bit as well? Or do you not have that in the USA?

So did they occupy the jury box as well? Jeeze

My mind was just blown!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.

True, but surely the judge has to direct things a bit as well? Or do you not have that in the USA?

It's kind of hard to explain, but in general the judge is there to advise the jury not to overrule them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.

True, but surely the judge has to direct things a bit as well? Or do you not have that in the USA?

It's kind of hard to explain, but in general the judge is there to advise the jury not to overrule them.

That's generally the case as well in the UK, but sometimes, the judge will drop a hint e.g Crime X is usually a 5 year jail sentence but use your own discretion.

It's more of a nudge if you know what I'm saying.

Sentencing happens at a totally different phase in the US and the jury does not participate in that part of the trial, at least criminally, with a few small exceptions (capital murder comes to mind, but that's offtopic).

 Ouze wrote:
Sentencing happens at a totally different phase in the US and the jury does not participate in that part of the trial, at least criminally, with a few small exceptions (capital murder comes to mind, but that's offtopic).

Same for us. What I'm trying and failing to do

is to say that in such a blatant open and shut case, the judge will give the jury a gentle nudge to remind them...

Obviously, we don't want judicial interference here, but I believe it's happened before in the UK. Obviously, can't speak for the USA.

It sounds like the government attorney failed to stop Bundy from rattling off his crazy ideology, and one juror swallowed it all which led to an acquittal.

I am no lawyer, but is there much an attorney can do to stop that type of thing through Objections and what not?

 Ouze wrote:

It can't be appealed, per se: it would be double jeopardy.

No, it can be appealed, and I'd be very surprised if an appeal isn't already being filed. It can't be re-tried; that would be double jeopardy. An appeals court doesn't re-try the case, they look at the extant body of work on the case (opinions, transcript, etc) and decide if (legally speaking) all the Is were dotted and all the Ts crossed. If the appellate court finds that some area of law was miss-applied, or that somebody violated legal procedure during the case, they can overturn the verdict, or in rare cases they can bounce the case back down the ladder for a retrial (and the retrial does a complicated dance and wears a magic hat to prevent it from being double-jeopardy). Usually, the appellate court just says "nope; everything looks kosher here" and the losing party has to suck it up. Most big cases are appealed, and many times the appeals are appealed, which moves things up to higher courts who repeat the process. This is how things eventually get to the Supreme Court.

But as others have said, this could very well embolden more idiots to violently protests the government. The next Branch Dildonian standoff won't end as relatively peacefully as this one did, I'm sure.

It' extremely rare for an appeals court to overturn a Jury verdict on the grounds of "this verdict is slowed." There have been instances of clear jury tampering where the court has declined to overturn a verdict.

I blame all the damn Wesen in Oregan for them, it is all their fault
Anyway, when I hear "Keep Portland Weird" I didnt think it also meant stupid

 LordofHats wrote:
It' extremely rare for an appeals court to overturn a Jury verdict on the grounds of "this verdict is slowed." There have been instances of clear jury tampering where the court has declined to overturn a verdict.

You're right about that; appeals courts don't often overturn jury verdicts. But it is a power they have. Just to clarify; I'm not saying the case will be overturned here. I'm just saying that it can be appealed (and most likely will be). Just because you file for an appeal doesn't mean that a) it will be granted or b) it will be successful. Most appeals aren't successful, in fact.

I just want to know what happened in there. What possible train of thought could have produced a not guilty for the Branch Dildonians? Was it just three days of listening to Bundy ramble? Did that liquefy the juror's brains?

Who handled the prosecution? The people from the O.J. Simpson murder trial?

 Spinner wrote:
I just want to know what happened in there. What possible train of thought could have produced a not guilty for the Branch Dildonians? Was it just three days of listening to Bundy ramble? Did that liquefy the juror's brains?

Probably won't know the full story till the court transcripts is released...

I dont want to live on this planet anymore.

Jury Nullification is a thing...

 Ahtman wrote:
The men we had video of taking over a federal building with guns were acquitted of taking over a federal building with guns today. Well at least faith in everything is being eroded.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) -- The leaders of an armed group who seized a national wildlife refuge in rural Oregon were acquitted Thursday in the 41-day standoff that brought new attention to a long-running dispute over control of federal lands in the U.S. West.

Tumult erupted in the courtroom after the verdicts were read when an attorney for group leader Ammon Bundy demanded his client be immediately released, repeatedly yelling at the judge. U.S. marshals tackled attorney Marcus Mumford to the ground, used a stun gun on him several times and arrested him.

U.S. District Judge Anna Brown said she could not release Bundy because he still faces charges in Nevada stemming from an armed standoff at his father Cliven Bundy's ranch two years ago.

The jury found Bundy, his brother Ryan Bundy and several others not guilty of possessing a firearm in a federal facility and conspiring to impede federal workers from their jobs at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, 300 miles southeast of Portland where the trial took place.

What am I missing? Absent jury nullification this is clear. It doesn't sound look they were overcharged. They admit to being there. There is video there. Don't get it.

Next time declare them traitors and napalm the site. We need to shut this down like a virus before it spreads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
My main concern now lies with all the other patriot/militia/dildonian groups out there.

Will they see this verdict and feel vindicated in their thought and feelings of unfair prosecution by the government, and will we see copycat occupations by other groups?

Indeed, time to treat the next crew as enemy combatants as Washington did with Shay's rebellion and hang them just like Washington did.

I read the Prosecution lied about/hid number of informants and info gotten from them during discovery. There were more CIs than actual defendants. That never helps convince a jury.

They also charged them with conserpacy instead of the dozen other things that would be much easier to get a conviction with. Brandishing guns, threatening, trespassing on government property, ect. I hope they still can charge them for those crimes even after this decision.

The state isn't allowed to levy charges on someone one after the other until it sticks. This violates the spirit of disallowing double jeopardy, and I'm pretty sure there's SCOTUS decisions to the effect.

The state only gets one shot at leveling a series of charges, even if they choose not to include all the charges they could have. This does not preclude leveling alternate charges for a different event in another jurisdiction, or presenting new charges with new evidence.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If the dildo doesn't fit, you must acquit!


This is a gross miscarriage of justice. Whoever is on that jury should be ashamed of themselves, for acquitting based on their "feelings" instead of the facts of the case.

True, but surely the judge has to direct things a bit as well? Or do you not have that in the USA?

This tends to overturn guilty verdicts and results in a remand for a new trial, not reversing an acquital.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I wonder if they would have been acquitted if they were Black/Latino/Asian/Ingenious.

of course not, we only need to look at the peaceful protest going on right now in dakota to see that.

this is my favorite quote from cnn
"As the standoff continued, police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas and unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd. "

talk about some media bias there, they deployed bean bag rounds, in other words they were shooting protesters with bean bag rounds while arresting 117 protesters.

the dakota protesters should arm themselves, and call for the government to be overthrown, that way the police will let them go home from time to time to resupply and stand off without bothering the protesters.

Unless we have another Crazy Horse up our sleeves, that doesnt seem likely.