As follow-up to Shari Dovale’s article, “BLM Agent Daniel P. Love Named In Investigation”, it was noted that Agent Love is being investigated for ethics violations and illegal activity.
It was also noted that Love will be the prosecution’s star witness in upcoming Bunkerville, Nevada trials. However, during the trial of the six first tier defendants in Las Vegas who are awaiting a jury verdict, the defense tried to call Love as a “hostile witness” for the defense and was denied upon a prosecutorial objection sustained by the court. It is not clear to this writer the reasons why the court would not allow Love’s testimony and cross-examination by the defense. It appeared to be based on grounds of relevancy and that his testimony would not be “helpful for the jury”. Certainly, if Dan Love’s testimony is relevant to the prosecution in upcoming trials, it is also relevant to the six first tier defendant trials and defense.
WHY DAN P. LOVE’S TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT AND CRITICAL TO
ALL THE BUNDY, ET. AL. NEVADA DEFENDANTS
1. He was the main actor for the BLM at Bunkerville. He orchestrated and supervised the BLM’s activities that impinged on the protesters.
2. He had numerous conversations with Bunkerville protesters and with local law enforcement, conversations that are highly relevant to the case.
3. He made claims in a recorded conversation that none of the cattle were being mistreated when the exact opposite is true. The mistreatment of the cattle is clearly relevant to the case and the actions taken by the defendants. The defense had a constitutional right to impeach his testimony if used by the prosecution and if not used by the prosecution, then the defense had a right to show how Dan P. Love was using overreach and abuse of authority in performance of his federal duties and why the defendants had a right to protest him the performance of those duties.
4. He supervised other wrongful actions of the BLM such as the destruction of water installations and works for animals that had been in use for generations.
5. The defense had a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction and authority as it relates to his role as a federal law enforcement officer.
6. His actions in other matters that are being investigated, may not be admissible evidence since the investigation is ongoing and not concluded. Nevertheless, his overall reputation in the community is admissible evidence as it may relate to his credibility.
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CALL AND CONFRONT WITNESSES
“the conviction of our time that the truth is more likely to be arrived at by hearing the testimony of all persons of competent understanding who may seem to have knowledge of the facts involved in a case, leaving the credit and weight of such testimony to be determined by the jury or by the court. . . .”
Rosen v. United States, 245 U. S. 467, 245 U. S. 471.
The Supreme Court in In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948), described what it regarded as the most basic ingredients of due process of law. It observed that:
“A person’s right to reasonable notice of a charge against him, and an opportunity to be heard in his defense — a right to his day in court — are basic in our system of jurisprudence, and these rights include, as a minimum, a right to examine the witnesses against him, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel.”
“The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury, so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.”
The prosecution is supposed to have an uphill battle, by bearing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants are supposed to be at the top of the hill with the presumption of innocence until the prosecution can convince beyond a reasonable doubt, their guilt and then the burden shifts at appeal. The defense is supposed to have preferential treatment and only in rare cases should the defense be denied its right to call witnesses regardless of whether they are favorable or hostile witnesses, as they deem appropriate.
During the first tier trial, the defense repeatedly told the court that it was for the jury to sort out the truth as triers of fact. Judge Navarro thought it was her role to prevent the jury from hearing things not helpful to them rather than let them decide for themselves as competent adults, if Dan Love’s testimony was helpful and relevant in determining a verdict.
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE
Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
The most important prerequisites to be a witness are memory and perception. To be a witness, a person must have perceived the matter in question, and they must remember it. If they do not remember, or did not perceive, the matter, then their testimony is speculation and it is inadmissible.
This is why the court’s ruling that Love, as well as Margaret Houston, could not testify for the defense, was so outrageous. They had personal knowledge, as much, if not more, than anybody else present at the events for which the defendants are being charged.
Under rules of evidence, if the testimony of Love or Houston stray into forbidden territory, not relevant or not truthful, then the other side can object. But, it is for the jury to hear the knowledge they do have and then make a determination.
A search of Federal Rules of Evidence says nothing about relevancy of a witness’ testimony as being grounds for preclusion from testifying. The only requirement is that they have memory and perception. While the perception may not agree with the federal team (judge, prosecutors and marshals), the constitution gives the defense the right to present knowledgeable testimony and the defense, being in the enviable position of being on the top of the hill, should be given broad leeway in presenting witness testimony.
THE EVOLUTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULES AND LAWS
This writer read in another scholarly article by a law professor, that the reason so many changes are being made to the Bill of Rights and to the constitution is because judges and legislators no longer consider the constitution relevant and applicable.
The reasoning goes something like this: “The British monarchy was bad, British law based on the divine right of kings, was very bad, very bad” (copying language style of Trump). However, today, in our modern world, we no longer have a monarchy and divine right of royalty nor do we follow British law. The colonists had a right to rebel against the monarchy and those “bad, bad people” (Trump again).
Today, we have replaced the bad monarchists with good people, who are democratic, balanced, trustworthy and honorable. So, the paranoia of the colonists in making a one-sided document such as the Bill of Rights which is wholly in favor of the accused, is no longer applicable. The fears of an abusive, centralized government are unfounded. Now, we must balance it with the State or Government’s interests.
In other words, the old fears about government overreach, abuse by royalty and tyranny, is no longer applicable as we now have checks and balances in place with competent and honest judges who do not have a monarchist background. The judges and prosecutors today, are “good, good people “(Trump again).
CONCLUSION
Therefore, any resistance to present day government is automatically wrong and automatically punishable. The federal team (judge, prosecutors, marshals) approaches the Bunkerville defendants with the above irrelevancy of the constitution in mind and justifies defendant pretrial detention because, unlike the colonists, there is no excuse for rebellion or resistance. The purpose of the federal team is to protect government interests and to minimize the defense to one of plea deals and levels of sentencing, because, it is fair to say that the behavior of the federal team leads us to this conclusion:
The defendants are guilty and cannot be proven innocent. They can only be adjudged less guilty and their sentencing reduced. Jury nullification must be prohibited at all costs. The jury, who is a rag-tag group of local citizens, really is not competent enough to make an informed decision based on thousands of pages of laws, precedence and court rules Therefore, we, the federal team, will reduce the jury’s role and substitute our own judgement, whenever we can get away with it.
