Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct
Quote | Reply
Nothing posted on this yet?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bundy-mistrial-2018-story.html

In the judges words... “Either the government lied or [its actions were] so grossly negligent as to be tantamount to lying,” Napolitano said. “This happened over and over again.”

The FBI apparently willingly and knowingly fabricated and withheld exculpatory evidence.

I'm hoping that the LR folks who worked for/with the FBI and have chimed in on previous threads would opine on this? I thought this didn't and couldn't happen because they're such standup guys and gals and us laymen would never understand how investigations work?

Methinks that these are the first of the FBI agents and prosecutors who are going to be in the headlines in the coming weeks.



----------------------------------------------------------------

My training
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [stal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stal wrote:
Nothing posted on this yet?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bundy-mistrial-2018-story.html

In the judges words... “Either the government lied or [its actions were] so grossly negligent as to be tantamount to lying,” Napolitano said. “This happened over and over again.”

The FBI apparently willingly and knowingly fabricated and withheld exculpatory evidence.

I'm hoping that the LR folks who worked for/with the FBI and have chimed in on previous threads would opine on this? I thought this didn't and couldn't happen because they're such standup guys and gals and us laymen would never understand how investigations work?

Methinks that these are the first of the FBI agents and prosecutors who are going to be in the headlines in the coming weeks.

I alluded to this case dismissal -- with prejudice (a serious dismissal meaning the government can't retry the Bundys on these charges -- in that dog license thread I started. It's a particularly egregious kind of misconduct, too, because it was clear the government serially withheld exculpatory evidence on several occasions when it had the opportunity to conduct is case in accordance with the standards of justice it's supposed to adhere to.

Cliven Bundy -- who I'm not a big fan of -- and his sons offered as a defense the claim that they had only armed themselves because they feared the government had them under surveillance and had posted snipers around them. The evidence prosecutors deliberately withheld from them was that, indeed, the government had in fact been surveilling them and really had posted snipers all around them.

Then there's this op-ed in USA Today:

"A whistleblowing memo by BLM chief investigator Larry Wooten charges that BLM chose "the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale and militaristic trespass cattle (seizure) possible'' against Bundy. He also cited a "widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical and legal violations" by BLM officials in the case. BLM agents even "bragged about roughing up Dave Bundy, grinding his face into the ground and Dave Bundy having little bits of gravel stuck in his face'' while he was videotaping federal agents. Wooten also stated that anti-Mormon prejudice pervaded BLM's crackdown."

Seems to me like the Bureau of Land Management was itching to get its gun off, as it were.

Am I at the point where I "love my country but fear my government?" Not as far as the latter sentiment goes, but news like this doesn't make it any easier to accept at face value, on some occasions, what the government presents as evidence when it seeks to bring citizens to the bar of justice.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
#BundyLivesMatter
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [stal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stal wrote:

The FBI apparently willingly and knowingly fabricated and withheld exculpatory evidence.

I'm hoping that the LR folks who worked for/with the FBI and have chimed in on previous threads would opine on this? I thought this didn't and couldn't happen because they're such standup guys and gals and us laymen would never understand how investigations work?

Methinks that these are the first of the FBI agents and prosecutors who are going to be in the headlines in the coming weeks.

What on earth makes you think this? The FBI did none of this. The judge's ire was directed at Assistant (and acting) U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre of Nevada. The prosecution has the burden of disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defense. Myhre claims his office released terrabytes of information, which they likely did. But, apparently, his office failed to disclose some key pieces of evidence.

This does not mean Bundy was innocent. This does not mean there was no case against Bundy. This certainly does not mean the FBI did anything wrong.

Myhre is acting US Attorney after his boss was asked to resign in March 2017. He was brought in with his boss under the Obama Administration and was asked to resign once Trump took office. He is in over his head and blew the case. Plain and simple.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Question for you - in this NYTimes article about the dismissal of the indictment, it says prosecutors elected not to disclose exculpatory evidence in part due to a good-faith concern about safety of witnesses that might be ID'ed in that evidence. While I understand the concern in concept (not sure about how real the risk was), is that a valid reason to fail to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense? Seems like the risk could be noted in connection with disclosure so that the court could alert authorities to need for protecting witnesses, if the judge thought it was warranted, no?

"After Judge Navarro’s ruling in December that prosecutors had withheld evidence in the ranch standoff that might have helped the defendants — including video taken surreptitiously within the ranch — prosecutors said in their court filings that fears of violence against witnesses were part of their decision-making in what evidence to release. “As a result of threats to witnesses and the speed at which personal information can spread on social media, the government concluded it could not simply turn over its entire database,” prosecutors wrote in a brief before Monday’s hearing. “Failure to disclose the information underlying the court’s mistrial order was due, in a few instances, to simple inadvertence, but in the overwhelming majority of instances to a good-faith,” they said."

[Note: it seems like something should come after "good-faith" in the quoted portion - I assume it was something like "good-faith belief that doing so would put witnesses at risk of harm" or something to that effect]
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
stal wrote:


The FBI apparently willingly and knowingly fabricated and withheld exculpatory evidence.

I'm hoping that the LR folks who worked for/with the FBI and have chimed in on previous threads would opine on this? I thought this didn't and couldn't happen because they're such standup guys and gals and us laymen would never understand how investigations work?

Methinks that these are the first of the FBI agents and prosecutors who are going to be in the headlines in the coming weeks.


What on earth makes you think this? The FBI did none of this. The judge's ire was directed at Assistant (and acting) U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre of Nevada. The prosecution has the burden of disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defense. Myhre claims his office released terrabytes of information, which they likely did. But, apparently, his office failed to disclose some key pieces of evidence.

This does not mean Bundy was innocent. This does not mean there was no case against Bundy. This certainly does not mean the FBI did anything wrong.

Myhre is acting US Attorney after his boss was asked to resign in March 2017. He was brought in with his boss under the Obama Administration and was asked to resign once Trump took office. He is in over his head and blew the case. Plain and simple.

Reading the docs that were available publicly, I don't think this was a simple matter of honest and inadvertent error on the part of the assistant US attorneys who prosecuted this case. If it had been that, the presiding judge most likely wouldn't have dismissed the case with prejudice, preventing the government from retrying the Bundys.

Also, I'm not sure how the FBI was dragged into this, but did they even have anything to do with it or with any sort of evidence collection or interviewing of the principals in this case? It looks more to me like the law enforcement arm of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) did that. Is this correct?
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wimsey wrote:
Question for you - in this NYTimes article about the dismissal of the indictment, it says prosecutors elected not to disclose exculpatory evidence in part due to a good-faith concern about safety of witnesses that might be ID'ed in that evidence. While I understand the concern in concept (not sure about how real the risk was), is that a valid reason to fail to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense? Seems like the risk could be noted in connection with disclosure so that the court could alert authorities to need for protecting witnesses, if the judge thought it was warranted, no?

"After Judge Navarro’s ruling in December that prosecutors had withheld evidence in the ranch standoff that might have helped the defendants — including video taken surreptitiously within the ranch — prosecutors said in their court filings that fears of violence against witnesses were part of their decision-making in what evidence to release. “As a result of threats to witnesses and the speed at which personal information can spread on social media, the government concluded it could not simply turn over its entire database,” prosecutors wrote in a brief before Monday’s hearing. “Failure to disclose the information underlying the court’s mistrial order was due, in a few instances, to simple inadvertence, but in the overwhelming majority of instances to a good-faith,” they said."

[Note: it seems like something should come after "good-faith" in the quoted portion - I assume it was something like "good-faith belief that doing so would put witnesses at risk of harm" or something to that effect]

There are degree of exculpatory evidence. On one end is evidence that shows the accused did not commit the crime. Prosecutors have two options in that case: (1) disclose the evidence or (2) drop the charges. In addition, on that end of the spectrum, if said evidence shows the person did not commit the crime, the prosecutor has an ethical responsibility to drop the charges.

On the opposite end is potentially exculpatory evidence. This is evidence that MAY be used to argue against a particular element of the crime. Here there is some discretion on the part of the prosecutor. The prosecutor has to employ a balancing test to determine the harm caused in releasing the evidence (in this case, danger to a witness) versus the harm to the defendant in not having this evidence. The prosecutor must do everything within his/her power to provide as much of this as possible while still protecting the witness.

It is a fine line. But, if the evidence is sufficient to explicitly defeat an element of the crime, the prosecutor has no choice. The prosecutor must disclose or drop the charge.

I dunno what we are talking about here, but it appears there were a number of factors the prosecution did not disclose. For example - there were snipers at certain locations. I do not know what justification the prosecution would have for not disclosing that information.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
JSA wrote:
stal wrote:


The FBI apparently willingly and knowingly fabricated and withheld exculpatory evidence.

I'm hoping that the LR folks who worked for/with the FBI and have chimed in on previous threads would opine on this? I thought this didn't and couldn't happen because they're such standup guys and gals and us laymen would never understand how investigations work?

Methinks that these are the first of the FBI agents and prosecutors who are going to be in the headlines in the coming weeks.


What on earth makes you think this? The FBI did none of this. The judge's ire was directed at Assistant (and acting) U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre of Nevada. The prosecution has the burden of disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defense. Myhre claims his office released terrabytes of information, which they likely did. But, apparently, his office failed to disclose some key pieces of evidence.

This does not mean Bundy was innocent. This does not mean there was no case against Bundy. This certainly does not mean the FBI did anything wrong.

Myhre is acting US Attorney after his boss was asked to resign in March 2017. He was brought in with his boss under the Obama Administration and was asked to resign once Trump took office. He is in over his head and blew the case. Plain and simple.


Reading the docs that were available publicly, I don't think this was a simple matter of honest and inadvertent error on the part of the assistant US attorneys who prosecuted this case. If it had been that, the presiding judge most likely wouldn't have dismissed the case with prejudice, preventing the government from retrying the Bundys.

Also, I'm not sure how the FBI was dragged into this, but did they even have anything to do with it or with any sort of evidence collection or interviewing of the principals in this case? It looks more to me like the law enforcement arm of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) did that. Is this correct?

I believe the FBI and ATF were involved in part of the investigation as it pertained to the weapons charges.

As to your first point - it appears to me the prosecution intentionally withheld information, based on how the judge responded.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [stal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
The FBI apparently willingly and knowingly fabricated and withheld exculpatory evidence.


No.

The FBI wasn't the federal body in question. It would be the U.S. Attorney's office that was at fault.

There's nothing in the reporting suggesting anyone fabricated anything.

The FBI or U.S. Attorney fabricating exculpatory evidence would be really dumb and self defeating. That accusation doesn't even make sense.

The evidence in question was not, as far as I can tell, exculpatory in nature. It was described as evidence related to what danger the Bundy family posed, and the existence of government surveillance and sniper positions. It was evidence required to be turned over to the Defense, but that doesn't make it exculpatory, I don't think. One of the LR lawyers would have to chime in to verify or correct that.


That's a lot of wrong in a single sentence.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Last edited by: slowguy: Jan 9, 18 10:28
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
wimsey wrote:
Question for you - in this NYTimes article about the dismissal of the indictment, it says prosecutors elected not to disclose exculpatory evidence in part due to a good-faith concern about safety of witnesses that might be ID'ed in that evidence. While I understand the concern in concept (not sure about how real the risk was), is that a valid reason to fail to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense? Seems like the risk could be noted in connection with disclosure so that the court could alert authorities to need for protecting witnesses, if the judge thought it was warranted, no?

"After Judge Navarro’s ruling in December that prosecutors had withheld evidence in the ranch standoff that might have helped the defendants — including video taken surreptitiously within the ranch — prosecutors said in their court filings that fears of violence against witnesses were part of their decision-making in what evidence to release. “As a result of threats to witnesses and the speed at which personal information can spread on social media, the government concluded it could not simply turn over its entire database,” prosecutors wrote in a brief before Monday’s hearing. “Failure to disclose the information underlying the court’s mistrial order was due, in a few instances, to simple inadvertence, but in the overwhelming majority of instances to a good-faith,” they said."

[Note: it seems like something should come after "good-faith" in the quoted portion - I assume it was something like "good-faith belief that doing so would put witnesses at risk of harm" or something to that effect]


There are degree of exculpatory evidence. On one end is evidence that shows the accused did not commit the crime. Prosecutors have two options in that case: (1) disclose the evidence or (2) drop the charges. In addition, on that end of the spectrum, if said evidence shows the person did not commit the crime, the prosecutor has an ethical responsibility to drop the charges.

On the opposite end is potentially exculpatory evidence. This is evidence that MAY be used to argue against a particular element of the crime. Here there is some discretion on the part of the prosecutor. The prosecutor has to employ a balancing test to determine the harm caused in releasing the evidence (in this case, danger to a witness) versus the harm to the defendant in not having this evidence. The prosecutor must do everything within his/her power to provide as much of this as possible while still protecting the witness.

It is a fine line. But, if the evidence is sufficient to explicitly defeat an element of the crime, the prosecutor has no choice. The prosecutor must disclose or drop the charge.

I dunno what we are talking about here, but it appears there were a number of factors the prosecution did not disclose. For example - there were snipers at certain locations. I do not know what justification the prosecution would have for not disclosing that information.

Thanks; helpful, and sounds vaguely familiar from Crim Pro, which is probably the last time I had cause to look at Brady, its progeny or the FRE in any detail:) I would assume the default would tend toward disclosure for due process reasons, but I can see how physical danger to witnesses could be a compelling reason on the other side.

As to the sniper example, I don't know either. I heard/read elsewhere that there was video evidence that was not disclosed; I suppose if the video enabled discovery of the identities of the gov't snipers that could generate risk of harm from hardcore Bundy supporters.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wimsey wrote:
As to the sniper example, I don't know either. I heard/read elsewhere that there was video evidence that was not disclosed; I suppose if the video enabled discovery of the identities of the gov't snipers that could generate risk of harm from hardcore Bundy supporters.


What happened was that Cliven Bundy (who I'll again say is a foolish man and who I don't sympathize with as regards the outcome of that standoff) claimed as a defense that they'd armed themselves because they believed the government was surveilling them and had also positioned snipers around them.

As it turns out, the evidence withheld by the assistant US attorneys prosecuting the case revealed that, yes; the government was indeed surveilling the Bundys and had also indeed positioned snipers around them. One can see how a prosecutor might not want that evidence to end up in the defense's hands, nor be presented to a judge or judge and jury.

No one from the government, as far as I can tell, willfully and knowingly fabricated any evidence in order to ensure the Bundys would be convicted. What they did was withhold the evidence that might convince a finder of fact and/or a jury the Bundys had taken appropriate defensive steps to safeguard themselves from possible improper use of deadly force by the government. I believe the government was maintaining that it was solely the actions of the Bundys in arming themselves when there was no perceived threat by the government that lead to the outcome of that standoff, and that they should suffer legal sanctions for it.

Certainly, what the US attorneys did concerned the trail judge enough that she'd already declared a mistrial in the case. Yesterday's actions regarded whether the case would be dismissed with or without prejudice (the latter would have allowed the government to charge the Bundys on the same counts yet again) and whether or not any retrial should ensue. The judge's action in dismissing the case with prejudice has pretty much put an end to the Bundy saga, at least for the government and any hoped-for prosecutorial efforts.
Last edited by: big kahuna: Jan 9, 18 13:08
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I understand all of that, but it is not responsive to the initial question I asked JSA nor to my speculation as to what might have undergirded the prosecutor's assertion that potentially exculpatory evidence (particularly the sniper information) was not disclosed because of risk of harm to witnesses that might follow as a consequence of disclosure.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wimsey wrote:
I understand all of that, but it is not responsive to the initial question I asked JSA nor to my speculation as to what might have undergirded the prosecutor's assertion that potentially exculpatory evidence (particularly the sniper information) was not disclosed because of risk of harm to witnesses that might follow as a consequence of disclosure.

I believe the judge, in considering the government's explanation for why the exculpatory evidence was withheld, did not find it convincing, especially as there seemed to be serial Brady violations on the part of the prosecutors. It wasn't just one instance, apparently: it was many. That's why she used the term "prosecutorial misconduct" in explaining her rationale for dismissing the case with prejudice.

What the prosecutors did seemed fairly egregious to me. One could almost say they attempted to railroad the Bundys, given the fact pattern of prosecutorial actions placed before the judge for her consideration.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
wimsey wrote:
I understand all of that, but it is not responsive to the initial question I asked JSA nor to my speculation as to what might have undergirded the prosecutor's assertion that potentially exculpatory evidence (particularly the sniper information) was not disclosed because of risk of harm to witnesses that might follow as a consequence of disclosure.


I believe the judge, in considering the government's explanation for why the exculpatory evidence was withheld, did not find it convincing, especially as there seemed to be serial Brady violations on the part of the prosecutors. It wasn't just one instance, apparently: it was many. That's why she used the term "prosecutorial misconduct" in explaining her rationale for dismissing the case with prejudice.

What the prosecutors did seemed fairly egregious to me. One could almost say they attempted to railroad the Bundys, given the fact pattern of prosecutorial actions placed before the judge for her consideration.
Funny, given all the time and energy and jailtime he has put into his cause, maybe it would be easier to just graze his cattle on his own damn property.

No sympathy for those clowns.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
spudone wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
wimsey wrote:
I understand all of that, but it is not responsive to the initial question I asked JSA nor to my speculation as to what might have undergirded the prosecutor's assertion that potentially exculpatory evidence (particularly the sniper information) was not disclosed because of risk of harm to witnesses that might follow as a consequence of disclosure.


I believe the judge, in considering the government's explanation for why the exculpatory evidence was withheld, did not find it convincing, especially as there seemed to be serial Brady violations on the part of the prosecutors. It wasn't just one instance, apparently: it was many. That's why she used the term "prosecutorial misconduct" in explaining her rationale for dismissing the case with prejudice.

What the prosecutors did seemed fairly egregious to me. One could almost say they attempted to railroad the Bundys, given the fact pattern of prosecutorial actions placed before the judge for her consideration.

Funny, given all the time and energy and jailtime he has put into his cause, maybe it would be easier to just graze his cattle on his own damn property.

No sympathy for those clowns.

I have no sympathy for him, either. It's the government's due process violations and other worrying behaviors in seeking to convict the Bundys, though, that concerns me more.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I do not have all the details or even most. But based on over 30 years of litigation, I am confident that the prosecutors failed to disclose even the existence of at least some of the material. For example, if it is the identity of snipers that the prosecutors feared disclosing, the court could have ordered redactions or some other way to protect their identities. Maybe the prosecution could have offered to admit that x snipers were deployed on certain dates at certain times, etc. The dismissal with prejudice indicates (to this lawyer) that there were multiple, purposeful, and complete failures to disclose discoverable and important information. So while there may have been legitimate safety concerns, the way to handle those concerns is to present them to the court by way of a motion for protective order, not to (as I am surmising happened) bury the evidence.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [Brick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brick wrote:
I do not have all the details or even most. But based on over 30 years of litigation, I am confident that the prosecutors failed to disclose even the existence of at least some of the material. For example, if it is the identity of snipers that the prosecutors feared disclosing, the court could have ordered redactions or some other way to protect their identities. Maybe the prosecution could have offered to admit that x snipers were deployed on certain dates at certain times, etc. The dismissal with prejudice indicates (to this lawyer) that there were multiple, purposeful, and complete failures to disclose discoverable and important information. So while there may have been legitimate safety concerns, the way to handle those concerns is to present them to the court by way of a motion for protective order, not to (as I am surmising happened) bury the evidence.

Exactly what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. It seems like if those concerns were legitimate, there are ways to still disclose the evidence while also seeking to protect the witnesses.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [Brick] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Brick wrote:
I do not have all the details or even most. But based on over 30 years of litigation, I am confident that the prosecutors failed to disclose even the existence of at least some of the material. For example, if it is the identity of snipers that the prosecutors feared disclosing, the court could have ordered redactions or some other way to protect their identities. Maybe the prosecution could have offered to admit that x snipers were deployed on certain dates at certain times, etc. The dismissal with prejudice indicates (to this lawyer) that there were multiple, purposeful, and complete failures to disclose discoverable and important information. So while there may have been legitimate safety concerns, the way to handle those concerns is to present them to the court by way of a motion for protective order, not to (as I am surmising happened) bury the evidence.

I think the "safety concerns" were just a BS excuse. They knew this would blow their case so they withheld it, and then blew their case anyway by defying the judge. It's common knowledge that you do what a judge orders or you're going to be toast.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [big kahuna] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
big kahuna wrote:
wimsey wrote:
I understand all of that, but it is not responsive to the initial question I asked JSA nor to my speculation as to what might have undergirded the prosecutor's assertion that potentially exculpatory evidence (particularly the sniper information) was not disclosed because of risk of harm to witnesses that might follow as a consequence of disclosure.


I believe the judge, in considering the government's explanation for why the exculpatory evidence was withheld, did not find it convincing, especially as there seemed to be serial Brady violations on the part of the prosecutors. It wasn't just one instance, apparently: it was many. That's why she used the term "prosecutorial misconduct" in explaining her rationale for dismissing the case with prejudice.

What the prosecutors did seemed fairly egregious to me. One could almost say they attempted to railroad the Bundys, given the fact pattern of prosecutorial actions placed before the judge for her consideration.

Closer, though still not directly responsive :). In honor of windywave, I'll award partial credit. 1.5 points for Gryffindor.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
stal wrote:


The FBI apparently willingly and knowingly fabricated and withheld exculpatory evidence.


What on earth makes you think this? The FBI did none of this. The judge's ire was directed at Assistant (and acting) U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre of Nevada. The prosecution has the burden of disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defense. Myhre claims his office released terrabytes of information, which they likely did. But, apparently, his office failed to disclose some key pieces of evidence.

This does not mean Bundy was innocent. This does not mean there was no case against Bundy. This certainly does not mean the FBI did anything wrong.

Myhre is acting US Attorney after his boss was asked to resign in March 2017. He was brought in with his boss under the Obama Administration and was asked to resign once Trump took office. He is in over his head and blew the case. Plain and simple.


slowguy wrote:
Quote:
The FBI apparently willingly and knowingly fabricated and withheld exculpatory evidence.


No.

The FBI wasn't the federal body in question. It would be the U.S. Attorney's office that was at fault.

There's nothing in the reporting suggesting anyone fabricated anything.

The FBI or U.S. Attorney fabricating exculpatory evidence would be really dumb and self defeating. That accusation doesn't even make sense.

The evidence in question was not, as far as I can tell, exculpatory in nature. It was described as evidence related to what danger the Bundy family posed, and the existence of government surveillance and sniper positions. It was evidence required to be turned over to the Defense, but that doesn't make it exculpatory, I don't think. One of the LR lawyers would have to chime in to verify or correct that.


That's a lot of wrong in a single sentence.

You two saved me some typing. Thanks!

2018 Races:
Oceanside 70.3, Oceanside, CA, April 7th | Ironman Texas, The Woodlands, TX, April 28th | Finland 70.3, Lahti, Finland, June 30th | Jonkoping 70.3, Jonkoping, Sweden, July 8th | Waco 70.3, Waco, TX, October 28th

Gear: Dimond Bikes | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
wimsey wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
wimsey wrote:
I understand all of that, but it is not responsive to the initial question I asked JSA nor to my speculation as to what might have undergirded the prosecutor's assertion that potentially exculpatory evidence (particularly the sniper information) was not disclosed because of risk of harm to witnesses that might follow as a consequence of disclosure.


I believe the judge, in considering the government's explanation for why the exculpatory evidence was withheld, did not find it convincing, especially as there seemed to be serial Brady violations on the part of the prosecutors. It wasn't just one instance, apparently: it was many. That's why she used the term "prosecutorial misconduct" in explaining her rationale for dismissing the case with prejudice.

What the prosecutors did seemed fairly egregious to me. One could almost say they attempted to railroad the Bundys, given the fact pattern of prosecutorial actions placed before the judge for her consideration.


Closer, though still not directly responsive :). In honor of windywave, I'll award partial credit. 1.5 points for Gryffindor.

Hahahahahahaha! I'd rather be in Slytherin. ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [wimsey] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's kinda spooky that the BLM feels comfortable positioning snipers around your property because they're in a legal conflict with you. Would it be ok for a citizen to station buddies with rifle in concealed positions around BLM senior official houses? No, it wouldn't. So how is it that our "limited government" feels comfortable exercising this degree of threat? The sheep aren't voicing enough outrage, that's how.

Imagine you walk out to your front yard and there's some guy in a ghillie suit in your front yard pointing a rifle at your front door. The very door your kids are about to walk out of. Wtf?

"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart
Last edited by: RangerGress: Jan 10, 18 10:38
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [RangerGress] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RangerGress wrote:
It's kinda spooky that the BLM feels comfortable positioning snipers around your property because they're in a legal conflict with you. Would it be ok for a citizen to station buddies with rifle in concealed positions around BLM senior official houses? No, it wouldn't. So how is it that our "limited government" feel comfortable exercising this degree of threat? The sheep aren't voicing enough outrage, that's how.

Imagine you walk out to your front yard and there's some guy in a ghillie suit in your front yard pointing a rifle at your front door. The very door your kids are about to walk out of. Wtf?

You live next door to a public park. You start occupying that park for your own personal use. A city official comes to your house to speak with you about your unauthorized usage. You force him away at gun point. The police come out. Your buddies grab their weekend warrior gear and take up positions around your house and the park, aiming their tacticool ARs at the police.

Buddy, you are gonna have snipers aimed and you and yours very quickly.

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [JSA] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
JSA wrote:
RangerGress wrote:
It's kinda spooky that the BLM feels comfortable positioning snipers around your property because they're in a legal conflict with you. Would it be ok for a citizen to station buddies with rifle in concealed positions around BLM senior official houses? No, it wouldn't. So how is it that our "limited government" feel comfortable exercising this degree of threat? The sheep aren't voicing enough outrage, that's how.

Imagine you walk out to your front yard and there's some guy in a ghillie suit in your front yard pointing a rifle at your front door. The very door your kids are about to walk out of. Wtf?


You live next door to a public park. You start occupying that park for your own personal use. A city official comes to your house to speak with you about your unauthorized usage. You force him away at gun point. The police come out. Your buddies grab their weekend warrior gear and take up positions around your house and the park, aiming their tacticool ARs at the police.

Buddy, you are gonna have snipers aimed and you and yours very quickly.

And deservedly so.

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.
Quote Reply
Re: Bundy dismissal - Flagrant Prosecutorial Misconduct [TheRef65] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Rhetorical question: Given you're suspecting snipers have been positioned around you and your home which sits adjacent to that public park -- or better still, positioned against you specifically -- do you then have a credible claim of self-defense to arm yourself against them?

That was the Bundy position as to why they decided to arm up, and the fact that BLM did indeed position them before the Bundys took to greatly increasing the amount of firepower they carried in response (or so they claimed) was a key piece of evidence that tended to support said Bundy defense against the charges levied against them by the feds and which was deliberately withheld by the government's prosecutors.

I have no sympathy for Cliven Bundy as regards the original cattle grazing issue. He seemed like a willfully obtuse freeloader to me. But it also appears as if the decision to go in and conduct a seizure of his cattle in such an initially heavy handed manner was evidence of BLM's desire to get its gun off, so to speak. There weren't less-confrontational and less potentially deadly means of dealing with Bundy (who has now become a hero within certain anti-government circles)?

People could have easily been killed just because some fool didn't pay the fees (either inadvertently or willfully) required so that his cattle could graze on public lands. BLM made a figurative martyr of Cliven Bundy. Fortunately, the agency didn't make him a literal one.
Last edited by: big kahuna: Jan 10, 18 0:19
Quote Reply

Prev Next