Posted on 10/26/2016 4:02:08 AM PDT by Nextrush
he judge and lawyers involved in the Oregon standoff trial were thrown a curve ball Tuesday afternoon when one of the jurors questioned the impartiality of a fellow juror....
....Juror 4, wrote a question to the court, asking-in all capital letters: "CAN A JUROR, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, WHO OPENS THEIR REMARKS IN DELIBERATIONS BY STATING, "I AM VERY BIASED..."BE CONSIDERED AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE IN THIS CASE?"
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown said she was unsure how to respond, but through a note to the jury confirmed the question referred to Juror No. 11........
Defense lawyer Per C. Olson said the question raised "a very serious matter of jury bias that has potentially tainted this jury," and asked that Juror 11 "simply be dismissed.".....
The other question jurors posed, in part was: "If we are able to agree on a verdict for 3 of the defendants, but are at a standoff for the others, does our decision for the three stand? Or does this become a mistrial for all of the defendants?".....
Brown took a 20-minute break to sentence a co-defendant in the case....Brian Cavalier...was sentenced to time served, the nine months he's been in custody as of Tuesday. Cavalier, 45, had pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy and possession of guns in a federal facility....he also faces federal indictment in Nevada stemming from the 2014 standoff....near Bunkerville......
By day's end, Brown decided she did need to address Juror 4's question. She decided to question Juror 11 in her chambers, with a court report, a prosecutor and two defense lawyers in the case present.....
Judge Brown invited lawyers to the case to return to court at 9 a.m. ion Wednesday to cite legal standing that would support further questioning of Juror 11...
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
There's tremendous disgust over the judge's handling of the trial, her suppression of the evidence, banning the Constitution from being quoted during the trial etc. etc. etc.
To have allowed a person who worked for the Bureau of Land Management to be a juror in this trial was wrong from the beginning.
It took another juror to let the cat out of the bag as to how biased this person was in the jury room during deliberations.
Kelli Stewart recorded a video late yesterday saying the defense lawyers will have to find case law by 9am Portland time this morning for the judge to consider removing the biased juror, otherwise the juror will stay.
It does not appear at this point that the jury will not reach a verdict at all on four of the seven defendants.
A defendant not on trial, Brian Cavalier, who pled guilty was sentenced to time served but will now go to Nevada to be tried over the Bunkerville standoff in 2014.
Far from it.
WTF? How did they get on the jury?
The judiciary is corrupt
It’s rigged.
That was my thought as well. This is a high profile case...how on earth did that person get on there, unless they outright lied or didn’t disclose their working history during the jury impaneling, which would be one of two things: overt deception, or total attorney incompetence.
I would raise holy hell.
I thought the occupation was wrong and the occupiers deserved to be on trial. But the killing of LaVoy Finicum was wrong too. It’s hard to understand how someone who worked for BLM could end up on the jury unless they had hidden this fact or the defense screwed up during the questioning of prospective jurors. Hopefully they have some alternates.
Motion for mistrial out of the gate this morning is my bet.
Gee. Unsure how to respond.
Another Affirmative Action hire: "...On April 22, 1999, Brown was nominated to the federal United States District Court for the District of Oregon by President Bill Clinton..."
Yeah. Elections don't matter. Think of the damage done in eight years by this incompetent, traitorous scumbag who has been in office for eight years now.
The defense attorneys made a big mistake by not using one of their juror challenges and excusing the former BLM employee.
The judge let this person into the jury pool with the person saying they could be ‘impartial’ during the jury selection process and they even repeated the notion under private questioning by the judge yesterday that they could be “impartial”.
But another juror has called this juror out for saying in the deliberations that they are ‘very biased’ about the case.
The defense attorney should not have had to. The JUDGE should have sent this guy off to some other jury.
It’s amazing to me that these things happened-
—the defense attorneys did not get everyone off the jury who have ever had anything to do with BLM and/or fedgov
—this juror who may have lied or withheld info during voir dire would then actually spill the beans on day 1 of deliberations
—the jury pool was possibly purposefully stacked with gov sympathizers to decrease the possibility of an impartial jury
So then that begs the question if this proclaimed “biased” juror is not necessarily pro BLM even if he is a former employee (why announce your bias and taint the results or possibly cause a mistrial?)
I have been called for jury duty twice in SC, and now twice in FL and one of those times was Federal court, so I’ve been through voir dire several times.
I think this was a plan by someone in BLM to have a man on the inside. They didn’t know he was a blabber mouth.
I assume the defense attorneys are working for the BLM too. Why would the defense have allowed this juror to be empaneled? Why request that the judge dismiss Juror# 11 and move forward, instead of demanding an immediate declaration of mistrial for this outrage — which potentially tainted the entire jury — and an investigation into whether other jurors are connected to the government and how a former BLM employees was even in the jury pool. Judge “I’ll have to wait for instructions from the government before I know what to say” Brown would deny the motion, setting up grounds for appeal.
When the judge would not allow parts of the constitution to be read you knew the fix was in. This bias juror will be allowed to sfay so the fedgov can get what it wants.
We are so far removed from what the founders left us.....
Defense attorneys are only allowed to expel a certain number of prospective jurors. I suppose it’s possible that this juror came along after they reached their maximum number of juror eliminations.
Either could have happened as a “luck of the draw” situation or he was seeded in after the defense reached their max.
We do not know which way a former BLM employee would argue.
They might argue against prosecution.
While that is possible I find it very unlikely. The Bundys and the BLM are not exactly best buddies.
Perhaps he/she is a govt plant, just like the FBI plants that were in on the occupation itself? How in gods name did we get to this point where mostly sane people like me can no longer trust even our courts system?
without cause limited, with articulated cause it is not. (ie married to judge or witness, specific bias admitted, offers to sell vote)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.