Posted on 08/11/2017 9:37:52 AM PDT by Bubba_Leroy
A federal judge in Las Vegas cut short the testimony of an Idaho gun enthusiast in the middle of his Bunkerville standoff retrial Thursday.
Eric Parker was photographed in April 2014 pointing a long gun through a barrier on an Interstate 15 overpass that overlooked a sandy ditch where protesters had gathered to face Bureau of Land Management agents.
Prosecutors first objected to Parker’s testimony about 20 minutes after he took the stand and uttered the words “First Amendment.”
Before the start of the second trial for Parker, a married father of two, and three other men, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro barred the defense from referencing constitutional rights to freely assemble and to bear arms. She also prohibited mention of alleged misconduct or excessive force by law enforcement.
After a lengthy sidebar, Parker’s testimony continued before prosecutors objected to his use of the word “sniper.” The judge disallowed the comment and sent the jury to lunch.
After returning from the break and spending less than an hour testifying on the stand, Parker described being handed a pair of binoculars while in Bunkerville before he “looked up and to the right.” He seemed to be referencing the same area where he believed a sniper had been positioned.
Acting U.S. Attorney Steve Myhre immediately objected and requested a meeting with the judge and defense attorneys.
Moments later, Navarro returned to the bench and told Parker to step down. The judge ordered Parker’s testimony stricken before asking defense attorneys whether they planned to call any more witnesses Thursday afternoon.
(Excerpt) Read more at reviewjournal.com ...
Thanks for posting this story. It is sad to see this happen in America. The Judge has literally denied these people a fair trial by restricting their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.
She needs to be replaced. So if this is a mistrial, what will the Feds do? Just try them again?
Sounds like this is going to the Supreme Court. This judge is horrific.
Bookmark
At this point Navarro must be figuring hung jury on the way.
If it goes South then these ridiculous ground rules by themselves are grounds for appeal
Judge would be tarred and then feathered by our founding fathers. What a tortured representative of justice; oh wait, justice, just for the king; King Kong, ie. DC.
I love Judge Navaro, because she is making this case so reversible.
Because we do not have transcripts, we don’t know how the Def tried to introduce the mentioned testimony, and it does not deal specifically with what happened that day, but it’s so easy to get stuff like this in as “state of mind,” and “Do you remember what you were thinking when X happened...”
Let the trial continue, because their might be an acquittal.
If not, Forrest Gump would prevail on appeal.
Aren’t we talking about the Ninth Circus? They’ll deny any wrongdoing on the part of the judge and the case will have to go to the Supremes. That’ll take time and money - lots of it and by the time the defendants get a chance at justice they’ll be old and broke. This isn’t about guilt or innocence, it’s about killing the movement slowly and painfully.
This judge is sure not making any friends. She won’t last long if we go into a “Road Warrior” society
He was one of the reasons why there wasn’t any bloodshed that day.
I suspect this is how a lot of federal cases go, to be honest (from what I have read, many “tax protest” cases are similar). It just so happens that this one is *very* high profile, so lots of folks are paying attention. If one does not bow to the king, so to speak, expect the PTB to destroy one’s life.
“He was one of the reasons why there wasn’t any bloodshed that day.”
The federal officers that may have reason to believe that they may have been being aimed at, may not see it that way.
Who do you think the feds are pointing their gun(s) at in post 30? BTW the Feds pointed weapons first.
“Who do you think the feds are pointing their gun(s) at in post 30? BTW the Feds pointed weapons first.”
I don’t think law enforcement gives a damn about who points the gun at who first, I think they act on that perceived threat and typically law enforcement does not ask questions when a gun is pointed at them.
However, the rules for pointing a gun at a cop should be the same in Nevada as it is in Detroit, New Orleans, and Chicago.
Generally the prosecution has unlimited discretion to put any and all evidence of “motive” in order to prove guilt, but the judge here slaps down a defendant from testifying as to his motive in order to prove innocence.
This is clearly grounds for appeal. Frankly after this scene, I can’t imagine any reasonable jury returning a guilty verdict. They just witnessed first hand what it means to be part of a kangaroo court. When a defendant is precluded from explaining his motive for his actions, then there is no justice.
Welcome to the Soviet Union.
U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro - another Obama appointee that needs to be impeached, removed, indicted, tried, convicted and hanged by her own system.
You seem to think cops have some special status. They must abide by the same laws you and I do. The Feds in the picture were pointing live weapons at a crowd filled with women and children. No one in that crowd was brandishing a weapon. Out of the picture there were snipers hired by the Feds that also had live weapons pointed at the crowd. The crowd was more peaceful than any antifa or BLM demonstration. The Feds were way out of line with this display of force.
There is a long standing legal argument on the validity, jurisdiction and origin of some courts.
I have forgotten the details, but I think it goes to military, admiralty, or administrative court as oppose to a constitutional court.
I recall that these courts refuse to allow a constitutionally defined flag, and instead use one of different dimensions and including gold trim.
Is there truth to this?
Is this dynamic in play here?
Experts wanted!
Regardless of flag fringes, most attorneys and most judges believe in the legal fallacy that the Constitution says only what SCOTUS claims that it says, and not the plain meaning based on original intent. They do not believe that our rights come from God. In other words, the Constitution can only be interpreted by “experts”, and the unwashed masses, the profane, should not dare to question their magisterium.
A bit like the way the Catholic Church treated the Bible prior to the Reformation, I might add.
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.