Navarro Stymies Due Process – Again

Denies Defense Timely Access To Love-Related Henthorn Materials

The first Bundy Ranch trial resumed Monday, 27 Feb 2017. During the week-long President’s Day holiday break, more damning evidence surfaced relating to the Bundy Ranch Tyrant (SAC Dan Love) behavior at Burning Man 2015. Specifically, the Deptment of the Interior’s Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) report that implicated Love in witness tampering and coercion was a redacted “for-public” version of the real report. In the full report, the OIG found evidence that Love had tampered with evidence.  In addition, he also committed obstruction of justice. Along with tampering and coercion, he deleted or destroyed documents. Gloria Navarro stymies due process by withholding evidence from defendants.

Tier 3 Witnesses Implicated

Attorneys for Tier 3 defendants originally tried to make the case that the discovery of Love’s questionable ethics violated certain mandates. Specifically, Brady and Giglio requirements for the disclosure of evidence that could impeach a witness. While the court denied any motions to dismiss, it did hold that the jury would have to see the full, unredacted version of the OIG’s report, IF, the Government were to call Love as a witness. Subsequently, the Government seems content to forego calling Love to the stand.

Navarro Stymies Due ProcessWhen the unredacted version came to light over the holiday break, lawyers argued that the non-disclosure of the full report was a violation of Henthorn evidence mandates. In US v. Henthorn, 931 F. 2d 29 – Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1991, the 9th Circuit held that prosecutors must furnish personnel records of witnesses if the material contains exculpatory (favorable to the defendant) evidence. Attorneys argued that the OIG’s report contained individuals on the Government’s witness list.  Consequently, any material related to Love’s obstruction of justice could have included information related to the Bundy Ranch Protest in April 2014.

Navarro’s Response: I decided it wasn’t relevant…

When confronted with another Brady / Giglio / Henthorn violation, Navarro’s response was simple. She said that the material had been provided to her in a timely manner. In addition, she didn’t feel that it had any bearing on the case. If defense attorneys wished to view the material, they would have to do so during a video-recorded session.

Navarro Stymies Due Process

Bottom line: this material should have been provided weeks, if not months ago. Due process violations stack up one after the other. This judge doesn’t care. She knows that the 9th Circuit will not be friendly to these defendants in appeal. The 9th Circuit is tantamount to a clown car of judges waiting to jump out and rule left on any case that goes to appeals. Her collusion with the Government falls under judicial discretion.

These defendants will have to beat these charges with the cards stacked against them. Fortunately, the outcome will watershed on the ability of a jury to see truth and apply it fairly. The Court and Government can collude with each other… but they can’t buy a jury.

Legal Counsel Access Denied

Attorneys cannot meet with defendants as a group…

Legal Counsel Access DeniedMagistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen denied Eric Parker’s motion (ECF No. 1497) to facilitate open air group meetings between defendants and their legal counsel. Citing lack of communication with the US Marshals Service, Leen determined that the request was not specific enough for the Court to be able to assess whether or not the request is reasonable. Absent a special request, the facilities at Henderson Detention Center do not provide for an environment where multiple attorneys can meet with multiple defendants. Specifically, the meeting rooms are small and defendants and counsel can only communicate through a glass wall. Subsequently, showing digital evidence (of which most in this case is) becomes problematic. Continue reading “Legal Counsel Access Denied”

Trial Day 1: Monday, 06 February 2017

Jury Selection…

Jury selection began today. Six defendants and five attorneys (Todd Engel proceeds pro se) questioned potential jurors on a wide range of issues related to the case. Jurors were promptly eliminated indicating that if the second pool moves as quickly as the first, opening arguments could begin as early as Wednesday. Continue reading “Trial Day 1: Monday, 06 February 2017”

Evidence Admissibility Ruling

Government Misconduct Admissible…

Chief Judge Gloria Navarro ruled on the Government’s motion to preclude certain evidence. The Government raised concern that certain arguments could lead to jury nullification. The Court granted most of the Government’s motion but did deny one element critical to the defendant’s strategy. Namely, defendant’s can introduce Government misconduct into their arguments according to the evidence admissibility ruling. Continue reading “Evidence Admissibility Ruling”

Bridge Photos Ruling Imminent

Court Gives Government 3 Days To Respond

On 27 January 2017, Parker, Drexler, and Stewart motioned to exclude from trial photos taken showing them on the NB I-15 bridge on Saturday, 12 April 2014. Their counsel argues that the opening in the jersey barrier is only 1.5 inches wide. Subsequently, no agent under the SB I-15 bridge would have been able to perceive an imminent threat from any of the three. In addition, Stewart didn’t surface in any agency reports until after photographs of the trio circulated widely in the media. The Court ruled that the Government will have until 07 February 2017 to respond making a bridge photos ruling imminent. Continue reading “Bridge Photos Ruling Imminent”

Defendants Request Case Dismissal

SAC Daniel P. Love’s Ethics Violations Not Properly Disclosed

Defendants Request Case DismissalSteven Stewart motioned for the dismissal of the entire case against Tier 3 Defendants. The Government has the responsibility to disseminate certain information to defendants if it will help their case. Love was the subject of an ethics inquiry detailing two events occurring in 2015. The Department of Interior’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that Love’s behavior in both incidents was in serious violation of Department policies. Due to these violations and Love’s role in Bundy Ranch, the incidents described by the OIG’s report fall under Giglio / Henthorne requirements. Consequently, Tier 3 defendants request case dismissal. Continue reading “Defendants Request Case Dismissal”

Count Three Dismissed

District of Nevada rules against 924(c)’s Residual Clause…

Count Three DismissedChief Judge Gloria Navarro dismissed Count Three of the Superseding Indictment. Her decision overruled Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen’s recommendation that the charge stay on the indictment. Count Three, known as a 924(c) “enhancement”, provides additional stiff penalties for defendants who use or carry a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. The underlying charge, Count Two, (Conspiracy to Impede or Injure a Federal Officer 18 USC § 372), falls into an evolving legal standard regarding “crimes of violence”. The portion of § 924(c) that applies to § 372 is void for vagueness due to recent Supreme Court and Circuit Court rulings. Continue reading “Count Three Dismissed”

Bundy Ranch Tyrant Surfaces At Burning Man

BLM Agent Daniel P. Love’s ethics violations…

Daniel P. Love | Bundy Ranch Tyrant
BLM SAC Daniel P. Love

The Salt Lake Tribune published an article detailing serious ethics violations on the part of BLM Agent Daniel P. Love. The violations occurred during the Burning Man festival, summer 2015. Daniel P. Love (the Bundy Ranch Tyrant) was the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) at Bundy Ranch. Discovery evidence in the Bundy Ranch Protest trial is under protective order. Consequently, until the trial unfolds, any wrongdoing of SAC Love is subject to speculation. Continue reading “Bundy Ranch Tyrant Surfaces At Burning Man”

Court Protects Jurors Identities Because of Defendant’s Supporters

Chief Judge Gloria Navarro issued a ruling today effectively putting the jury in the upcoming Tier 3 trial under the same protective order as all of the discovery evidence. The order comes as no surprise since the case historically garners much media attention. However, it wasn’t the act of putting juror identities under protective order that gave rise to notice; it was the reason for the order that stands out as peculiar. Continue reading “Court Protects Jurors Identities Because of Defendant’s Supporters”

Defendants Seek Undercover Agent’s Identity

File opposition to Government’s motion to seal…

The Government filed a motion (ECF No. 1440) on January 27th, 2017 requesting a protective order on the identity of an undercover employee (UCE). The Government wishes to call the witness to testify, but expresses concern that revealing the identity of the UCE could jeopardize other ongoing investigations. The UCE’s investigation apparently led to the arrest of the defendants in Tier 3. Further, the Government asked the court to preclude any cross-examination that might shed light on the UCE’s identity. The defendants seek undercover agent’s identity in order to investigate the UCE’s history and strength of character for cross-examination. According to the Government, the UCE could play conversations they recorded with the defendants. Continue reading “Defendants Seek Undercover Agent’s Identity”