Posted on 08/06/2020 11:33:04 AM PDT by aimhigh
Summary
The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice, due to violations of Brady v. Maryland, an indictment charging Cliven Bundy; two of his sons, Ryan and Ammon Bundy; and Ryan Payne with obstructing federal law enforcement officials carrying out lawful court orders. The indictment followed a well-publicized effort by the Bureau of Land Management to impound Cliven Bundy’s cattle for a twenty-year failure to pay federal grazing fees.
Cliven Bundy and hundreds of armed supporters from around the United States forced federal officials to abandon the impoundment plan. Days into the defendants’ trial, the government began disclosing information in its possession that, under Brady, was arguably useful to the defense and should have been produced to the defendants well before trial. As additional documents came forth, the district court held a series of hearings, eventually deciding that the trial could not go forward and that the indictment must be dismissed with prejudice.
Reviewing whether the district court properly dismissed the indictment under its supervisory powers, the panel considered the evidence cited by the district court to decide * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader whether substantial prejudice resulted from the Brady violations, whether flagrant misconduct occurred, and whether alternative remedies could have redressed the injury here.
Central to the government’s case were allegations that the defendants intentionally lied about being surrounded by snipers as a ploy to gather armed supporters. Had the defendants been able to proffer a basis for genuinely believing that government snipers surrounded the Bundy Ranch, they potentially could have negated the government’s scienter theory. Surveying all of the withheld evidence – including surveillance-camera evidence, FBI “302” investigative reports regarding snipers, Tactical Operations Center (TOC) log records, and threat assessments – the panel held that the record amply supports the district court’s conclusion that the defendants suffered substantial prejudice in not being able to prepare their case fully, refine their voir dire strategy, and make stronger opening statements.
Regarding the question of flagrant misconduct, the panel wrote that to the extent any government agencies or actors, through their own flagrant misconduct, failed to make known exculpatory information, the flagrant nature of such conduct will be imputed to the prosecution. The panel explained that flagrant misconduct need not be intentional; reckless disregard for the prosecution’s constitutional obligations is sufficient. Although it saw only negligence in the withholding of the TOC log records, the panel found no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that the withholding of the surveillance-camera evidence, the 302s, and the threat assessments crossed the threshold from negligence to recklessness.
The panel observed that the prosecution withheld facially exculpatory evidence that directly negated the government’s theory that the defendants lied about fearing snipers, and that the deliberate choices to withhold those documents were not cases of simple misjudgment. The panel wrote that although dismissal with prejudice requires a district court to find that “no lesser remedial action is available,” the panel understands by this phrase that a district court must conclude that no lesser remedy will fully address the damage caused by the government’s misconduct.
The panel concluded that the district court, which thoroughly considered the prejudicial effects, did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the indictment with prejudice. The panel wrote that lesser sanctions would have given the government an opportunity to strengthen its case at the defendants’ expense, and noted the related need to impose a sanction that will serve to deter future prosecutions from engaging in the same misconduct as occurred here.
Was Weissmann involved? He loves to cheat.
Actually, for all the faults of the 9th COA, they are generally very good on cases like this; much better than several “conservative” COAs.
If you were to be falsely convicted based on prosecutorial misconduct, you really want the 9th Circuit to hear the appeal.
They’re still very liberal. The balance is getting closer, and we are getting more and more 3 judge panels with 2 reasonable judges. It’s still 16-13, and the GW appointees are often squishy. If Trump is reelected, he will certainly flip it during his 2nd term.
Why do USAians have to pay government fees to use USA land? It is land held in common among us. Our fathers free-ranged for all of our history until DC took the land. Why does DC own massive pieces of the states land? Since when was DC given power to seize or be given the lands of our states? How few know our actual laws, heritage and common laws. DC is a foreign power to USConstitution and We-The-People.
DC owns DC, federal court land, federal military bases and a few other pieces of land, lawfully. No authority for most of what DC has decided to do. Broke their charter, created by We-The-People and the individual states.
Thanks for the info... Will keep it in mind... Particularly since we live in Maryland, the country's capital of "misconduct" of all kinds...
Ipse dixit
That was Lavoy Finnicum, from the Malhuer Bird Refuge occupation in Oregon in support of the Hammonds who were also persecuted by the BLM.
“Was that a herd of pigs flying past my window?”
Small pigs.
What they did to the Bundys is so bad, so over the top corrupt, so Obama administration thuggish, that even the 9th couldn’t whitewash it.
Those people are all still there. If anyone thinks they changed their minds, get real. They still think they’re the new American Aristocracy and we’re just their serfs, working the Manor Lands for them. Tribute is still required.
ah
thanks
Not a valid analogy.
The chop folks hijacked buildings, businesses, and streets, that were in use by other rightful owners. They threatened, and extorted from the residents, and denied them unabated travel.
Bundy grazed cattle. That means they ate grass, that grows back. He didn’t deny anyone the use of “our” land, or impede their travel.
I say the gov’t has no business owning any land, other than monuments, admin. buildings, and D.C.
Unfortunately, good lawyers work for private firms or themselves. Bad ones work for the government.
Well, that'll happen when the BLM and other government entities decide they, and not the people, own much of the West.
Yup. Do you think people in, for instance, Maine would put up a fuss if the feds and the state government owned and controlled 70 percent of the state? (Think of Nevada.) Somehow I think their attitude about the BLM and where their animals are allowed to graze would change quickly.
Oh yes....General Flynn.
The Bundy case is only relevant in Nevada. Everyone else can go pound sand. /sarc
The feds claim 87% of Nevada!
Bundy’s grazing rights predate BLM.
It’s not the simple black/white issue so may want it to be for convenience and rush to judgement.
I think there is another non-federal side to the story.
You’re full of it.
From what I recall, his position was that his family had been using that land for grazing from well before the BLM was even created.
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.