Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy vindicated after federal judge declares mistrial

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has long claimed he was wronged by the Obama administration’s overly aggressive prosecution of him and his family in 2014 over his refusal to pay bogus grazing fees he said he never owed.

Turns out he was exactly right.

As reported by The Daily Caller, court documents unsealed last week provide details about how a team of prosecutors assigned to convict Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan, along with family friend Ryan W. Payne, following an armed standoff near their Nevada ranch failed to hand over exculpatory evidence to a federal court.

As such, their case ended in a mistrial Dec. 20 after U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ruled that the prosecutors violated the defendants’ civil rights after withholding evidence that would have supported their case.

Now, Navarro is considering tossing the case out altogether “with prejudice,” a ruling which would block prosecutors from retrying the case. A decision is expected Jan. 8, The New York Times reported.

Two earlier trials against other defendants ended in hung juries, the Times noted further.

Among the exculpatory evidence the prosecution failed to turn over was a video taken from within the Bundy range during the standoff by a federal informant, evidence that the FBI had agents involved in the standoff, and a threat assessment of the Bundys that the government drafted.

“There were approximately 3,000 pages that were provided to us only after we started trial,” Bret D. Whipple, one of Cliven Bundy’s lawyers, told the Times. “I personally have never seen anything like this, especially in a case of such importance.”

“We’ve told everyone all along, ‘the truth will set us free,’” said Angie Bundy, the wife of Ryan Bundy. “It was the lies we’re worried about.”

Other evidence withheld from the court was an assessment by government officials that the Bundys were not violent people. “She cited all of that,” Angie Bundy said of Navarro. “At this point, I don’t know what kind of case they have against us.”

The Oregonian reported that attorneys for Ryan Payne requested in a July 5 email that prosecutors turn over all threat assessments prepared before the 2014 standoff, but prosecutors characterized the defendants’ frequent push for the assessments as one in a “long list of frivolous and vexatious pleadings.” As such, prosecutors withheld those assessments until the defendants were actually in court and in the midst of their trial. The existence of the assessments was confirmed by a government witness under cross-examination.

Failure to hand over the assessments was “just one example of the prosecution team’s callous disregard of its constitutional obligations to share with the defense any potentially favorable evidence, according to Payne’s lawyers,” The Oregonian reported.

(Related: REPORT: BLM used ‘incredible bias’ during overly aggressive RAID of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy.)

For more than 20 years Cliven Bundy has grazed his cattle on federal land in Nevada but refused to pay grazing fees, insisting he was not obligated to do so because he had inherited water rights on the land. In response, the BLM, during a heavily-armed raid, seized his cattle, killing some of them, in an attempt to force him to pay. The Bundys were supported immediately by dozens of armed neighbors who showed up to help protect and defend them.

In April 2014, Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, wrote a column that was critical of the BLM for the way its agents handled the standoff with Bundy, noting prophetically that “the federal government is out of control yet again.”

A subsequent report in December substantiated Adams’ claims. BLM special agent Larry Wooten issued a report indicating that government agents very likely broke federal laws and used “incredible bias” against Bundy and his family during the incident while engaging in tactics of intimidation during the operation.

Via Natural News

---

Featured Image: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

The post Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy vindicated after federal judge declares mistrial appeared first on Intellihub.

BREAKING: Judge Dismisses ALL Charges Against Bundy Family, Bars Retrial

The court"s decision marks an end to the federal case against the Bundy family for their role in the 2014 armed standoff over cattle-grazing rights in Nevada.

Bundy Trial Landmark Day – January Eighth

THE INFORMATION THEREIN PROVIDES FURTHER EVIDENCE OF FLAGRANT GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT.

by Terry Noonkester   1-4-2018

Judge Navarro is scheduled to rule on which classification of mistrial is appropriate for Cliven, Ryan and Ammon Bundy, and their co-defendant, Ryan Payne.  The classification she decides on will make a huge difference and could bring anything from a retrial, or the end of this case.  Her decision could also affect the other 15 defendants indicted in USA v Cliven Bundy et al.

Judge Navarro indicated that the remedy for the Brady violations she was seeking was only for the evidence that was in violation for missing the October 1st, 2017 deadline, which would indicate only the four defendants in this trial. On December 20th, when Navarro declared a mistrial, she mentioned two options.  A mistrial without prejudice would allow the prosecution to retry the current four defendants; or a mistrial with prejudice would bar a retrial.  The status of all other defendants in Cliven Bundy et al would remain as they were unless they individually appealed to a higher court.  The lawyers representing the four defendants, and the prosecution filed their briefs, as instructed, on December 29th.

Myhre wrote in his brief;

…“The Brady violations found by the court are regrettable and benefit no one,”…. “But because the government neither flagrantly violated nor recklessly disregarded its obligations, the appropriate remedy for such violations is a new trial.” 

Ryan Bundy’s brief, referred to the “Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26.3 Mistrial” that states;

     “Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives”… “The Rule ensures that a defendant has the opportunity to dissuade a judge from declaring a mistrial in a case where granting one would not be an abuse of discretion”.  

Judge Navarro not only failed to give the defendants this opportunity, but when Ryan Bundy requested to comment, she refused to allow it.  Because of Navarro not following this procedure, the mistrial should be with prejudice.

There is a third option that Navarro failed to mention but the defense lawyers have strenuously brought to her attention in the briefs they filed on December 29th. They are in favor of a “dismissal of the indictment, with prejudice”.  The grand jury Indictment, the formal accusation that a person has committed a crime, would then be dismissed. This type of dismissal was the choice in the USA v Chapman case,  also headed by Steven Myhre as prosecutor, dismissed with prejudice on May 06, 2008.  A dismissal of the indictments would bolster the legal status of the other 15 defendants in all tier groups of the trials.

As the Chapman case was concluded, two new Assistant United States Attorneys appeared on behalf of the government to argue against dismissal. The district court listened to the arguments and then granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss an indictment with prejudice.  Myhre had acted “flagrantly, willfully, and in bad faith”.

Such a severe finding regarding Myhre’s misconduct as the lead prosecutor did not stop him from becoming the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Nevada.  On the federal level, the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector Generals Office were in the chain of command for disciplinary actions, but those institutions failed to protect the public from Myhre’s unethical prosecutions.  The Nevada Bar Association was responsible for disciplinary actions at the state level.

When a prosecutor violates the defendants constitutional rights, the court is supposed to pay for their wrongdoing by giving the defendants an advantage.  In USA v Cliven Bundy et al,  the defendants seemed to be well on their way to an acquittal.  It is clearly to their disadvantage to start over with a new jury.  The prosecution would have the advantage of a fresh start with a new jury that might not see the same struggle the defense team had to make to overcome the Brady violations that blocked crucial evidence. The government witnesses that have already impeached themselves have learned not to get caught in some of their own lies.  Giving the prosecution another chance to correct their mistakes would put the defense at a disadvantage and therefore ‘dismissal without prejudice’ should not even be considered.

A district court may dismiss an indictment on the ground of outrageous government conduct if the conduct amounts to a due process violation.  If the conduct does not rise to the level of a due process violation, the court may nonetheless dismiss under its supervisory powers.  Judge Navarro had found the Brady violations in the Bundy trial were to the level of due process violations.

The nineteen men arrested for the Bundy Ranch Protest were indicted together by the same grand jury.  The trial was later broken up into three tiers, each having their own trial for the courts convenience.  That arbitrary division should not block any group or groups from the benefits of a dismissal of the indictment. In the best case scenario of dismissing the indictment with prejudice, Judge Navarro’s decision could help in termination of past plea bargains, convictions and both Tier 1 and Tier 2 group trials.

There is also evidence of worse prosecutorial misconduct that is not a part of the court record.  Judge Navarro has not discussed this evidence, in the form of the ‘Wooton email’ publicly.  This is the 17 page email plus a cover page written by BLM’s lead investigator of the Bundy case.  Wooten held this position for nearly three years until he was removed on February 18th, 2017.  Myhre requested Wooten’s removal from the Bundy investigation to Wooten’s BLM supervisor just the day or days before.  Special Agent Larry Wooten’s summary of the email subject reads: “Bureau of Land Management Law Enforcement Supervisory Misconduct and Associated Cover-ups as well as Potential Unethical Actions, Malfeasance and Misfeasance by United States Attorney’s Office Prosecutors from the District of Nevada, (Las Vegas) in Referencer to the Cliven Bundy Investigation.”

There have been several sealed hearings in Judge Navarro’s courtroom since Larry Wooten’s email was made public by Washington State Representative Matt Shea and Shari Dovale of Redoubt News.   Also, the “Motion to Dismiss” written by Public Defenders Brenda Weksler and Ryan Norwood in behalf of defendant Ryan Payne stated: “While violations already found by this court are already enough to justify dismissal, there remain other issues that have yet to be explored—notably those arising from (half a line of text redacted) provided to the defense on December 8, 2017.

The “Motion to Dismiss” continues;  “The information therein provides further evidence of flagrant government misconduct, and a pervasive, willful failure to provide the defense exculpatory evidence.  The Court should direct an extensive inquiry into the matter if it does not dismiss the indictment.”  They later stated; “THE INDICTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE”.  The attorneys give several court case examples that prove that the misconduct of the prosecution of the Cliven Bundy case fulfills the requirements to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, and then it continues with the statement; “The facts relied upon by the Chapman court to dismiss the case with prejudice pale in comparison to this case.”

Mixed in with heavily redacted pages is the following information;  “The court should also hear evidence from the other parties directly involved with his dismissal, (redacted text), and Acting U.S. Attorney, Myhre,”…“A fair inquiry into circumstances (redacted text) will make the US Attorney a necessary witness, and will require their recusal from the case.”  The heavily redacted text in this December 29th brief can be taken as a warning that there are still far too many governmental secrets involving this case.

The prosecution used false statements and hid evidence to make false charges against nineteen men indicted by the grand jury, the only remedy to preserve justice is to go back to the root of the deceit and dismiss the indictment, with prejudice.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Wednesday, January 3rd, 2018, that Dayle Elieson will replace Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre effective Friday, January 5th, 2018.  Myhre will return to his role as First Assistant U.S. Attorney.  Elieson was one of 17 interim U.S. attorneys appointed by Sessions in districts throughout the United States.

January 8th, 2018 will be a historic day, not only for the trial of USA v Cliven Bundy et al, but for many legal proceedings to come.  Judge Gloria Navarro will decide between liberty and tyranny.

The Judicial Doctrine of Immunity states that “Immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly”…”Judicial immunity is not overcome by allegations of bad faith or malice,” the Supreme Court said in its opinion in Mireles v. Waco.  The opinion went on to  explain; “… judges lose their immunity only in two circumstances: when they are sued for a ‘nonjudicial action,’ like a personnel decision, or when they are sued for an action that, ‘though judicial in nature,’ was ‘taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction.’”

However, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to block impeachment of a judge through the U. S. House of Representatives, an avenue that Washington D.C. attorney Larry Klayman may be taking  with the complaint he has filed.

The climax to the USA v Cliven Bundy et al trial will be at the Lloyd George Federal District Courthouse, 333 S Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada, 9:00 am on January 8th, 2018.

Redoubt News

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  
You can donate HERE.

 

The post Bundy Trial Landmark Day – January Eighth appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Myhre Begs Navarro For Another Chance

WHAT WILL MYHRE DO TO SAVE HIMSELF? WHO WILL HE THROW UNDER THE BUS?

Editorial by Shari Dovale

Acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada Steven Myhre filed a brief outlining his reasons that he should be allowed to retry the defendants in the Bunkerville Standoff trial.

This is quite the masterful work of a desperate man. Clearly he believes that overwhelming the court with a brief so large that it requires a table of contents may hide the truth of the words themselves.

Not only does he repeatedly imply that did he not intend to violate the law, but, in his opinion, it really did not have a substantial impact on the defendants.

This sounds suspiciously like Hillary’s infamous response, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Let us not forget that the case that continues to be cited for prosecutorial misconduct, US v Chapman, is a case where Steven Myhre was also the lead prosecutor. This is his history. This is his strategy. Hiding evidence from the defense seems to be his well-established nature as a prosecutor.

To be sure, Myhre does not deny the violations made by him and his team. But, he does downplay them to the point of barely mistakes. Using terms like “simple inadvertence” suggests that the blatant lawlessness of these violations was merely… an oopsie.

“As the government understood its Brady/Giglio obligations, the information was not helpful to the defendants” is almost offensive to these men incarcerated for nearly two years. Does Mr. Myhre really mean to suggest that only he should determine what is relevant to the defense?

The original indictment clearly accuses the defendants of lies and deceit in their internet postings.

Claiming that the defendants made up tales about snipers and surveillance on their home which now, through the revelations of these Brady violations, prove to be absolutely true, Mr. Myhre still contends that this is not important enough to be sanctioned by the court.

It does make one wonder, if the tables were turned, how should Mr. Myhre’s deceit be judged? By the same standards as he applied to the common man (Cliven Bundy)? Or is he to be held to a different standard (above the law)?

What Myhre has not given much thought to is the fact that Judge Gloria Navarro has already ruled that his actions were “willful”.

The Court also finds that this information was willfully suppressed, despite representations by the Government that this report was an urban legend and a shiny object to distract the Court.

Does Mr. Myhre believe that Judge Navarro will backstep her ruling and give him another chance at his exercise in futility? Or is he just hoping that she doesn’t set aside the previous convictions and plea agreements in this case, as they were materially effected by his illegal acts?

After the abuse was made public, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered an investigation into the case. This puts another high profile spin to the case that is not so easily swept under the rug.

Myhre is not the only one that will be held liable for this government SNAFU. There will be an onslaught of employees in the prosecutors office that will do anything to save themselves. What will Myhre do to save himself? Who will he throw under the bus?

I am sure that Steven Myhre will do “Whatever It Takes.”

Redoubt News

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  
You can donate HERE.

The post Myhre Begs Navarro For Another Chance appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Epic Corruption: Unsealed Court Documents Show How Prosecutors Tried To Rig The Bundy Trial

Unsealed court documents detail how the team of prosecutors tasked with convicting Cliven Bundy and his sons of crimes relating to a 2014 armed standoff failed to turn over potential exculpatory evidence to the court, The Oregonian reports.

The Bundys’ case ended in a mistrial Dec. 20 after Judge Gloria Navarro ruled that prosecutors violated the civil rights of the defendants by withholding evidence supporting the Bundys’ case.

Navarro is considering dismissing the case “with prejudice” and blocking prosecutors from retrying the case. Her decision will come Jan. 8, according to The New York Times.

“There were approximately 3,000 pages that were provided to us only after we started trial,” Bundy lawyer Bret D. Whipple told TheNYT. “I personally have never seen anything like this, especially in a case of such importance.”

Those 3,000 pages include the Bundys’ requests for multiple federal assessments that showed the Bundy family was likely not dangerous. Prosecutors called the requests part of a “long list of frivolous and vexatious pleadings,” until a government witness, under cross examination, revealed knowledge of the assessments in court, The Oregonian reports.

Defense attorney’s asked federal prosecutors to hand over Inspector General reports on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) agent Dan Love, who directed the BLM raid on the Bundy ranch to seize the family’s cattle over decades of unpaid grazing fees.

Love was fired from the agency in September for corruption and unethical behavior.

Prosecutors had dismissed the allegations and investigations of Love as an “urban legend,” but ended up handing over 500 pages worth of reports on Love in December, according to The Oregonian.

The Bundys’ lawyers made two requests to Navarro for a special “discovery monitor” to ensure that all relevant documents were being turned over by the prosecution. Both requests were denied.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, however, launched an investigation into prosecutorial misconduct after the mistrial.

Will Navarro Dismiss Cases Against All 19 Defendants?

HOW DEEP DOES THIS COVER-UP GO? WAS IT ALL FROM STEVEN MYHRE, OR WAS NAVARRO COMPLICIT?

By Shari Dovale

The recent mistrial in the case of US v CLIVEN D. BUNDY et al. Sets some issues on the table for Judge Gloria Navarro that she has avoided thus far.

The mistrial came on December 20th, weeks into the case that was the third try for the government. Prosecutors, including Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre, AUSA Daniel Scheiss, AUSAA Nadia Ahmed, and AUSA Erin Creegan, have had extraordinary difficulty in getting juries to convict any of the 19 defendants.

There have been no convictions on the most serious charges of conspiracy, and the only convictions that have been handed down were admittedly based on the defendants statements after the fact, such as within the entrapment video by the FBI and there phony “Longbow Productions”.

The most significant achievements by the prosecution was the plea agreements that several of the defendants accepted, based on the false narrative the prosecution alleged. The men were told they would face a lifetime in prison, and they already knew that they would not receive a fair trial. They were bullied into accepting the plea agreements.

Yes, the defendants already knew they would not receive a fair trial. They had access to the discovery evidence and knew some of what had been left out They filed motions to get certain evidence placed into the record, yet Judge Gloria Navarro continued to rubber-stamp the prosecutions motions.

AUSA for the District of NV,

Steven Myhre (right)

Navarro never seemed to consider that these men were innocent until proven guilty. The more she validated the prosecutions narrative, the more she denied the defendants their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. This should come as no surprise, however, considering she repeatedly refused to allowthe Constitution to be mentioned during the first two trials.

Things did change during the third trial, which brought Cliven Bundy to the defense table. The prosecution seemed to have lost their edge as the new team of defense lawyers, which includes a stellar performance by Ryan Bundy, challenged the rhetoric that Myhre and company continued ranting.

Evidence was finally allowed into the trial of the misdeeds of the government, and the prosecutions deliberate suppression of this evidence. Judge Navarro made it clear on December 20th that the Court, “does find that it was a willful disclosure/suppression of this potentially exculpatory, favorable, and material information”.

Navarro finally came clean and smacked the prosecution for the “willful” Brady violations. This means that she recognizes that the Acting US Attorney for the entire District of Nevada, Steven Myhre, and his crew of miscreants, deliberately broke the law and tried to illegally railroad these men into prison for the rest of their life.

Still, Navarro has shown that she is not quite up to speed on the workings of the judicial system, a hard pill to swallow for a seated Chief Judge. She made a blanket declaration of a mistrial, instructing all parties to submit motions for and against a dismissal with prejudice, or whether the government should be allowed yet another bite at the proverbial apple.

What Navarro should have done is follow Rule 26.3 which states that “Before ordering a mistrial, the court must give each defendant and the government an opportunity to comment on the propriety of the order, to state whether that party consents or objects, and to suggest alternatives.” Navarro bypassed this rule and did it her own way, which is exactly what the prosecutors have done all along, and she has allowed.

However, since the truth has begun to come out, Navarro has been put into a position to make some hard choices.

Cliven Bundy

The original indictment was against 19 men. Some of these men have already been sentenced, such as Jerry DeLemus and Greg Burleson. If Navarro dismisses the case against the current defendants, will it include the dismissal for all 19 men?

The general consensus seems to be that this is the only ethical answer to the problem. The previous trials were conducted under the same false premise and Brady violations. The plea agreements were based on the defendants not being allowed a fair trial.

But, how deep does this cover-up go? Did Steven Myhre design this farce on his own? This might seem the obvious response, as the case being cited for Brady violations is US v Chapman, a case that Myhre was intimately involved in.

Still, we must ask the next questions: Was Navarro complicit? Were they taking their orders from a higher entity, possibly from Washington DC?

With the announced investigation by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, I am sure these questions will be answered in the coming weeks. For now, the defendants will continue to fight for their freedom.

Defendants that are scheduled for sentencing are requesting delays, so as to see the outcome of the January 8th hearing. This include Pete Santilli and Todd Engel. The remaining defendants are showing patience through this hearing, wherein they will decide their next move.

 

Redoubt News

 

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  
You can donate HERE.

 

 

The post Will Navarro Dismiss Cases Against All 19 Defendants? appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Bunkerville Trial – Mistrial for the Bundys and Ryan Payne

A court date is set for Dec. 29 for a decision on whether or not Cliven Bundy, Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, and Ryan Payne will be re-tried. A tentative new trial date is February 26.

This video is by John Lamb, who was in the courtroom this morning and provides details of today’s court session.

 

Posted by John Lamb on Wednesday, December 20, 2017

The post Bunkerville Trial – Mistrial for the Bundys and Ryan Payne appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Case against Cliven Bundy declared a mistrial

A federal judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the case of a Nevada rancher accused of leading an armed standoff against the government in 2014, blaming prosecutors for withholding key evidence from defense lawyers, including records about the conduct of FBI and Bureau of Land Management agents.

Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro in Las Vegas dismissed a jury seated last month for the long-awaited trial of Cliven Bundy, his sons Ryan and Ammon Bundy and self-styled Montana militia leader Ryan Payne.

The decision is the latest in a string of failed prosecutions in Nevada and Oregon against those who have opposed federal control of vast swaths of land in Western states.

Jurors acquitted the two Bundy sons of taking over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon for more than a month in early 2016 and amid calls for the U.S. government to turn over public land to local control.

In the Nevada case, Navarro faulted federal prosecutors for failing to turn over all evidence to defense attorneys.

“The government is obligated to disclose all evidence that might be favorable” to the defense, the judge said.

The case stemmed from an armed confrontation that capped a decades long dispute over Cliven Bundy’s refusal to pay grazing fees. The 71-year-old rancher says his family has grazed cattle for more than a century in the area and insists public land belongs to states, not the U.S. government.

Government agents began rounding up his cattle. The four on trial were accused of enlisting armed gunmen to force government agents to abandon the effort.

The judge had hinted last week that trouble was afoot. She sent the jury home to review sealed documents following closed-door hearings over complaints about the conduct of FBI and Bureau of Land Management agents during the standoff.

Jurors got a glimpse of the claims when Ryan Bundy, who represented himself, spoke at opening statements about seeing government snipers and surveillance cameras positioned on hilltops surrounding his family home in the days before armed supporters answered his family’s calls for help.

A whistleblower memo by a lead U.S. Bureau of Land Management investigator that was released last week alleges widespread bad judgment, bias and misconduct, as well as “likely policy, ethical and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff” in the days leading up to the standoff.

The memo said agents who planned and oversaw the cattle roundup mocked and displayed clear prejudice against the Bundys, their supporters and Mormons.

The investigator, Larry Wooten, said he was removed from the investigation last February after he complained to the U.S. attorney’s office in Nevada.

The judge freed the Bundy sons and Payne to house arrest during the trial after nearly two years in jail. Cliven Bundy refused the judge’s offer, with his lawyer saying the patriarch was holding out for acquittal.

Read more at FOX News

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Photo: AP

 

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  
You can donate HERE.

The post Case against Cliven Bundy declared a mistrial appeared first on Oath Keepers.

MISTRIAL in Bunkerville Protest Trial

by Shari Dovale

The verdicts are in for the first tier defendants in the Bunkerville Protest trial.

There are 6 defendants facing 10 counts each. There are potentially over 70 counts the collective defendants could be found guilty on. This includes separate “brandishing” enhancements to each of the three firearms charges.

The jury has announced they are hopelessly deadlocked on most of the charges, including the charges of conspiracy. Judge Gloria Navarro has declared a mistrial on those charges.

Though the jury is in disagreement about most of the charges, they have reached consensus on the following:

Greg Burleson, the former FBI informant, has been found guilty on 8 out of 10 charges. Additionally, he was found guilty of brandishing associated with each of the 3 firearms charges he was found guilty on.

Todd Engel, of Boundary County Idaho, has been found guilty on 2 charges. These charges are to do with obstruction of justice and interstate travel to aid in extortion.

• 
  
  • Count 6- Use and Carry of a firearm: Greg Burleson is found guilty and jury found in addition guilty of brandishing his weapon.
    Hung jury, No verdict on all others.
  
  
  • Count 8- Threatening a Federal Officer
    Greg Burleson is found guilty.
    Hung jury, No verdict on all others.
  
  
  • Count 9-Use & Carry of a Firearm during a Crime of Violence
    Greg Burleson is found guilty and jury found in addition guilty of brandishing his weapon.
    Hung jury, No verdict on all others.
  
  
  • Count 12- Obstruction of Justice
    Greg Burleson is found guilty
    Todd Engel is found guilty
    Hung jury, No verdict on all others.
  
  
  • Count 4- Interference of Commerce & Extortion
    Greg Burleson is found guilty.
    Hung jury, No verdict on all others.
  
  
  • Count 15- Use & Carry of a Firearm
    Greg Burleson is found guilty and jury found in addition guilty of brandishing his weapon.
    Hung jury, No verdict on all others.
  
  
  • Count 16- Interstate Travel & aide to Extortion
    Greg Burleson is found guilty
    Todd Engel is found guilty
    Hung jury, No verdict on all others.
  
  
  • Jury instructed under Allen charge to deliberate further on all ‘Hung Jury’ charges they were unable to unanimously decide.
  
  

The jury came back last week to ask for more clarification of the definition of conspiracy. The judge was, apparently, not clear enough for the jury on this charge as they have not been able to reach an agreement to any conspiracy.

Each charge these defendants have faced is a felony with mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines.

Todd Engel was convicted of two of the smallest charges that were listed. They are, basically, stemming from his internet postings, or emails. He is expected to receive minimum sentencing, possibly time served or probation.

Greg Burleson was found guilty of all charges with the exception of the conspiracy charges. He was also given the enhancements for “Brandishing” to each of the 3 firearms charges. These mandatory guidelines require him to serve so much time that there is no chance of him leaving prison during his lifetime.

Navarro has scheduled sentencing dates for the two defendants today. Burleson is scheduled for Wednesday, July 26^th and Engel is scheduled for the following day, July 27^th.

May 25^th has been set for more information on the next round of this trial. The defendants are expected to be returned to Pahrump detention, though they plan to argue for release pending the new trial.

There has been a great team in Las Vegas keeping everyone up to date on everything that has happened. It is hard to name them all, but each one is very appreciated. Here are some of today’s updates:

Andrea Parker shares a synopsis of this morning’s verdicts here:

John Lamb, who has been reporting since the start of the trial, reports here:

MISTRIAL DECLEARED IN 1ST NEVADA TRIAL questions from jurors as they work on the verdict

Posted by John Lamb on Monday, April 24, 2017

 
From REDOUBT NEWS