It seems to me that anything having to do with the death of Finicum is relevant to Bundy’s state of mind either during or after it happened.
So, this charge in particular, “impede federal officials-officers from doing their job “, should only be permitted to exclude Finicum if it restricts itself to any alleged ‘impeding’ BEFORE events on that drive leading the death of Finicum. ANY of the charges should be prohibited from mentioning anything during or after that fateful drive. Anything mentioned by the prosecutor during or after that drive should be fair, and fair would mean the death of Finicum being discussed. JMHO.
The judge has to ensure a guilty verdict. Any attempt to get to the truth must be severely dealt with.
I have been called dozens of times to jury service. I always get out of it because in voir dire I tell the truth. When asked if I will follow the instructions of the judge, I say that it depends on what they are. I then give an example or two of situations like this where I would be told to ignore relevant information because the court is trying to keep the truth from the jury.
As a result of my truthful statements I invariably get excused for cause.
The truth is irrelevant in criminal trials. Juries are kept in the dark so they aren’t informed of the truth. It’s systemic.