Good for that jury. This was a RE-TRIAL after the first trial jury was hung.
These men spent a YEAR IN PRISON - so much for a 'speedy trial' as defined as a RIGHT in our Constitution. A whole freaking year - damn the government.
The most malignant portion of this case were the judge's actions in preventing the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF DEFENSE in a court of law.
In my opinion, this Judge should be impeached.
Fortunately the jury saw the same thing - and voted, NOT GUILTY.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-investigations/2017/08/22/no-guilty-verdicts-bundy-ranch-standoff-trial/592019001/
Bundy Ranch standoff trial ends with zero guilty verdicts
A federal jury in Las Vegas did not return any guilty verdicts Tuesday against four men accused of taking up arms against federal agents during the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014.
Jurors dealt government prosecutors a stinging defeat in the case when, after four days of deliberations, they returned not-guilty verdicts on the most serious charges and deadlocked on a handful of others.
Richard Lovelien of Oklahoma and Steven Stewart of Idaho were acquitted on all counts and walked out of court Tuesday night free after spending more than a year in prison.
"Both Ricky and I were teary-eyed," Las Vegas defense lawyer Shawn Perez said of the verdict, "I was shaking ... I have gotten not-guilty verdicts before, but this was really special to me."
Two other defendants, Eric Parker and O. Scott Drexler, both of Idaho, were acquitted on the most serious charges of conspiracy and extortion, but jurors failed to reach unanimous verdicts on weapons and assault charges.
Both men could be allowed to go free after a detention hearing scheduled Wednesday morning. The court ordered both defendants to be released to a halfway house until Wednesday's hearing.
"(Parker) is getting released as we speak," Las Vegas defense lawyer Jess Marchese said Tuesday night. "He's ecstatic."
After the jury's decision, U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro called for the hearing without any motions from the defense, Marchese said. "We didn't bring it up," he said.
Federal prosecutors had little to say about the verdicts.
“While we are disappointed with the verdicts, we thank the jurors for their service," Trisha Young, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Las Vegas, said in a statement Tuesday. "At this time, the government has not announced its decision regarding the retrial of Eric Parker and O. Scott Drexler.”
MagaWarrior @trumpinternet
Congrats to the Bundys. They stood up to the thieves of the @BLMNational @BLMOregon and were victorious.
#Bundytrial #bundyranch http://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/900155659307692032 …
7:54 PM - Aug 22, 2017
ChristianPatriot @SavetheUSNation
http://ift.tt/2xaGFSx "Deep State Utterly Broken: No guilty verdicts reached in Cliven Bundy Bunkerville ranch standoff! American People…
8:10 PM - Aug 22, 2017
guilty verdicts... • r/The_Donald
Deep State Utterly Broken: No guilty verdicts... • r/The_Donald
Government loses 2nd case
This marks the second time a jury failed to convict the defendants on charges related to the standoff, which pitted armed ranchers and militia members against Bureau of Land Management agents in a dusty wash below Interstate 15 about 70 miles north of Las Vegas.
Social media exploded with posts on Twitter and Facebook from Bundy supporters, many of whom have maintained a sidewalk rally since the first trial of these defendants opened in February.
Jurors in the second trial notified Navarro on Tuesday they had reached an impasse on several counts. The defendants were called into court at 2 p.m. when the verdicts were announced.
The men were being retried on conspiracy, extortion, assault and obstruction charges for helping Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy fend off a government roundup of his cattle in what became known as the Battle of Bunkerville.
A jury in April deadlocked on charges against the four men. It convicted two other defendants on multiple counts. But it could not agree on conspiracy charges — a key component of the government's case — against any of the six.
The government launched its second prosecution last month. The case climaxed Aug. 11 when Navarro abruptly ended court by ordering Parker off the stand and striking his testimony from the record as jurors watched.
The defendant was attempting to tell jurors what he saw during the standoff over a barrage of objections from prosecutors. Navarro ruled Parker violated court orders by discussing prohibited topics. Parker returned to the defense table and started crying while Navarro dismissed the jurors.
Marchese said jurors told him Tuesday the incident was a factor in their verdicts.
"That weighed heavily in their decision," Marchese said. "They wanted to hear him speak. It was very bothersome to them. They felt like they weren't getting the whole story."
Marchese said jurors were sympathetic to the defendants and their inability to mount a cogent defense in light of restrictions that prevented them from talking about why they participated in the standoff and what they were thinking while they were there.
"It wasn't one thing," Marchese said about what led to their verdicts. "They (jurors) said it didn't make sense."
The case went to the jury Tuesday after lawyers for all four defendants waived closing arguments as part of a protest about court proceedings and restrictive legal rulings.
"The jurors knew our hands were tied," Perez said. "By the time the government laid it all out for them, they had already made up their minds ... They knew there was no reason for us to go farther."
Perez said the government's string of witnesses, largely composed of local, state and federal law-enforcement officers, became both repetitive and contradictory, according to jurors.
"They were bored to death," Perez said.
Judge's restrictions on the defense
Navarro's rulings, aimed at trying to avoid jury nullification, severely limited defense arguments. Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict based on its shared belief rather than on the evidence in a case.
Navarro barred defendants from discussing why they traveled thousands of miles to join protesters at the Bundy Ranch. She did not allow them to testify about perceived abuses by federal authorities during the cattle roundup that might have motivated them to participate.
Navarro also restricted defendants from raising constitutional arguments, or mounting any defense based on their First Amendment rights to free speech and their Second Amendment rights to bear arms. In her rulings, Navarro said those were not applicable arguments in the case.
{ Un-FREAKING BELIEVABLE - A JURY CAN NOT HEAR ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION, especially the SECOND AMENDMENT, which was specifically written for citizens to ALWAYS be able to protect themselves from the tyranny of government.
Could rant for hours- but not needed in present company - if this doesn't scream to an out of control and corrupt judiciary, nothing will. }
Federal officials did not face the same restrictions. To show defendants were part of a conspiracy, they referenced events that happened months, or years, after the standoff.
Federal prosecutors, led by Acting Nevada U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre, argued in court the case wasn't about the First or Second Amendments; that the Constitution doesn't give people the right to threaten federal officers.
They said the Bundys' dispute with the BLM was adjudicated and the court issued a lawful order to round up the cattle. When ranchers and the militia conspired to force the release of the cattle, they broke the law, prosecutors argued.
( article continues ... but the above, although a victory, is a brief and transient victory against an increasingly ugly exercise of 'federal authority' -- Sheriff Jo can attest to that. )
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 
