Tainted Jury? Malheur Protest Trial
by Shari Dovale
The trial of the Malheur 7 in Portland is into the third day of jury deliberations. This afternoon brought questions from the jury.
It seems that the jury is having some trouble agreeing on all the charges. They may have come to a consensus on a few, however.
There were three questions that were as follows:
- If we are able to agree on a verdict for 3 of the defendants; but are at a stand off for the others, does our decision for the three stand? Or does this become a mistrial for all the defendants?
- Conversely if we are able to agree on a decision for 10 out of the 13 charges does that decision stand or does it become a mistrial? As an example … If we find a defendant guilty of count one, but can’t agree on count two what happens?
- The 3rd question came from a single juror instead of the entire jury: Can a juror, a former employee of the Bureau of Land Management, who opens their remarks in deliberations by stating ‘I am very biased …’ be considered an impartial judge in this case?
The juror that submitted the question is #4, while the juror that is said to be biased is #11.
Per Olson, attorney for David Fry began by asking for juror #11 to be dismissed, but Judge Anna Brown refused to do that.
Brown, as well as attorneys for the defense and prosecution, met with this juror and Brown asked him if he could remain impartial. He stated that he could, and that seems to be where Judge Brown wants to leave it.
She has given the defense until 9am tomorrow morning to cite case law before she will decide on whether to investigate the allegations further.
The holdout is probably the snuck in “I am very biased” ex-BLM employee and the judge has the nerve to even think about not excusing them? I would think it’s an automatic reason for a mistrial or appeal if convicted.
Judge Brown refused tp disqualify this juror during selection. If any defendant(s) are found guilty, it will be appealed by the defense and with good cause.
After reading some of the testimony presented by the prosecution and the rebuttals from the defense, the government’s case appears to have unraveled quite a bit. Charges of conspiracy only mean that two or more people were involved in the planning. They cannot be considered planners if they were not involved in the January 2nd occupation. Some came as late as a week before the arrests and murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum.
Most of the firearms (over 30) could not be attributed to any of the defendants. Charges of ‘destruction’ of federal property and theft fell apart with testimony and video showing the cameras taken down were not damaged and the protesters requested that the FBI come and take possession of them. The other charge of stolen property was a vehicle that was driven by one of the protesters into Burns for supplies. They vehicle was returned to MNWR and not stolen.Unlawful use of property maybe, but certainly not theft.
Another point of the government’s case involved firearms training at the refuge. Turns out the ‘training expert’ was a paid informant hired by the FBI to be a witness to the ‘large number of arms and ammunition’ the protesters had. As the prosecution could not prove ownership (only the registered firearms of LaVoy Finicum and perhaps one other handgun) it leaves the jury (and the rest of us) wondering where these other weapons came from and by who.
The main charges are preventing federal employees from returning to work by the use of force, intimidation, or threat. Video evidence presented shows the opposite intent as stated by Ammon Bundy himself when asked by a reporter about refuge workers. Ammon stated they would get out of their way and not interfere with them performing their duties. BLM Director Karges testified that employees were ordered ny him (and he was ordered by his boss in DC) to keep them from the refuge (with pay) until the
issue is resolved.
It does not appear to me at least, that it is the ‘slam-dunk’ case the feds thought it to be. Keep in mind, these men and women hurt no one, threatened no one, were sitting in a building that for the most part would have remained unoccupied until early spring, and were held since their arrests with no bail under ‘terrorist enhancement’ laws passed by Congress. How can that be you ask? Harry Reid called the Bundy family and all of the people who supported them ‘domestic terrorists’ on national television. Protest/rally on January 2, 2016 was for the re-sentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond who also were charged as terrorists for the back burn fires they started. BLM claims they destroyed 129 acres of grassland. The residents of Frenchglen call them heroes for saving their town from the fires started by the BLM.
So we’re supposed to take Juror #11’s word for it that he is NOT biased as he indicated in his statements? What are the odds that this juror would cover up just to save his hide? Oh, I’m sure he would have never, never lied when approached about his statements (sarcasm turned off now). It’s unbelievable to me that he was even allowed on this jury in the first place as a prior BLM employee. So the next time an innocent cop is shot and killed, will that judge be okay with allowing a PRIOR/RETIRED COP on the jury? After all, he claims he can be “unbiased,” right? This is unbelievable!
I see the developments as POSITIVE for the Jury …… One Hold Out …… That is Good for the DEFENSE. Keep PRAYING
You have got to be kidding, this cannot be possible to allow BLM on the jury to judge. This is fraud upon the court, only the appearance in this is needed. It only appears biased from all walks in life.
Based on the context given in the first two questions, where do people think the jury stands? Are they agreeing on 3 guilty charges or 3 innocent charges?