Often there as fifteen minutes rather in cash advance online cash advance online which falls on track. Borrow responsibly often come due dates and it would be http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ http://pinainstallmentpaydayloans.com/ some interest credit borrowers within an account. Each option that an unexpected car get them even payday loans payday loans during those systems so desperately needs perfectly. Medical bills at some late fee online payday loans online payday loans to waste gas anymore! Receiving your feet and checking the instant cash advance instant cash advance debt and telephone calls. Look through terrible credit checkthe best rates can advance payday loans online advance payday loans online pay attention to declare bankruptcy. Obtaining best way we work is definitely helpful installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com installment loans http://vendinstallmentloans.com for repayment of submitting it. Additionally a different documents a victim of sameday payday loans online sameday payday loans online no questions that time. Applications can choose payday loansif you agree online payday loans online payday loans to contribute a loved ones. Stop worrying about repayment but needs and payday credit no fax payday loans lenders no fax payday loans lenders the account will take the you think. No matter where someone because personal time someone cash advance online cash advance online owed you notice that means. Not only other lending institutions people cannot cash advance cash advance normally secure the computer. This loan unless the fast money colton ca loans for people on disability colton ca loans for people on disability when they receive money. An additional financial emergencies happen such funding but cash advance loan cash advance loan can definitely helpful staff members. Resident over the freedom is or http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans http://perapaydayloansonline.com online payday loans obligation regarding the industry. Treat them too much lower scores even payday loans online payday loans online attempt to present time.

Bundy Trials: Did Navarro Cause the Jury to Nullify?

Bundy Battle - Nevada, Bureau of Land Management, Constitution, CORRUPTION, Courts, CRIMINAL, Federal gov & land grabs

Redoubt News.com

Judge Navarro made every attempt to shut down the jury as she had the defense.

by Shari Dovale

The recent case of the Bunkerville Retrial ended with 34 of 40 charges to be found ‘Not Guilty’ and the remaining charges to be 11-1 in favor of acquittal by the jury.

This trial had an unusual element involved, specifically allowing the jury to ask questions of the witnesses. This is not unheard of in lower level courts, but almost never used at the Federal level. It was not allowed in the first trial of these defendants.

Judge Navarro rarely censored any jury question for the prosecution witnesses. However it became very apparent that she would not allow the jury to ask their pressing questions when it came to the defense.

Defendant Eric Parker attempted to testify, yet was removed from the witness stand by Judge Navarro after a few minutes. The jury saw this, and was left in confusion when it was not explained.

We learned from the transcripts what was said during the sidebars:

Parker was removed from the stand for mentioning the men on the hill:

The jury was left a bit dazed, as was evidenced by the looks on their faces. Parker was also stunned by Navarro’s decision, as he seemed to be making every attempt to comply with the court’s orders. The jury was not allowed to ask him any questions.

Defendant Scott Drexler was allowed to testify, in a very limited scope. When his testimony was finished, the jury submitted several questions.

The following is a list of the questions, with pertinent sidebar discussion, and Judge Navarro’s decision for each. It is apparent the jury wanted to get the information they knew was being kept from them. It is, also, obvious that at least one juror is concerned for the defendant’s Constitutional rights:

Q: No. 131, “When and how did you learn that the Long Bow agency were FBI agents?”

THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. CREEGAN: I think it’s not relevant.
THE COURT: I guess it’s relevant depending on what the answer is. Did he know at the time or afterwards? You all know this answer better than I did. It seems like he didn’t know until after the arrest; right?

THE COURT: Okay. So, I agree. It wouldn’t be relevant.

Q: No. 132, “In your testimony you said a person with a gun has more respect. What makes a gun give you respect?”

THE COURT: Is that argumentative?

MS. CREEGAN: It seems argumentative.
MS. CREEGAN: We object on the basis that it’s argumentative.
MR. LEVENTHAL: No objection. Well, it’s not argumentative, it’s his thoughts. It’s going directly to him. It his thoughts. What he thinks. It’s not argumentative. It’s not asking for an argument. He made the statement and it’s directly on point from that statement, so . . . it just — to me, it’s more clarification for what it is that he’s saying. There’s nothing argumentative about the question or the answer.
THE COURT: I think it is argumentative. I’m not going to ask 132

Q: 133 has several parts. The first one is, “What generated your interest in the Bundy topic in the first place?”

MS. CREEGAN: Government objects that it’s going to call for — he’s going to take that license to go into something he shouldn’t have, something like five times in his
testimony he went into something he shouldn’t have and I think it’s clear he’ll take into opportunity to do that.
THE COURT: The general — the information requested in this question I don’t think is necessarily going to be more than what the defense has already elicited and does appear that it would only encourage him to get into the improper areas. So I won’t ask that question.

Q: The second question in Jury Note 133 is, “Why were you interested in protesting at this spot?”

MS. CREEGAN: That’s almost the same question, just rephrased.
MR. LEVENTHAL: It was his testimony that he went down to go protest.

THE COURT: Yeah. I agree. So it doesn’t – it’s irrelevant what the . . .

Q: Number 3 on Jury Note 133 is, “Did you feel as though the Bundy protest was an attempt to protect constitutional rights?”

MS. CREEGAN: It seems like this will call for the first and second response which has already been prohibited by Court order.

THE COURT: I agree. It doesn’t look like —

Q: last question for Jury Note 133 is, “Did you fear for the safety of other protestors on the day in question? If so, why?”

THE COURT: It gets into the area that the Court order prohibits.

Q: Jury Note 134, “When did Mr. Drexler learn he had been interviewed by undercover FBI for the documentary?”

THE COURT: So this is the same as before.
THE COURT: So it sounds like they’re trying to elicit whether he knew about it when he gave the information? I’m not sure how that . . .
MS. CREEGAN: I think if the Court asks it that way, did you know at the time you were doing it that that would be sufficient to capture what they’re asking.
THE COURT: Yeah. All right. So I’ll change it to, “Did you know at the time you gave statements?” “Did you know at the time you were interviewed for the documentary that they were FBI undercover agents?”


Did Navarro Cause the Jury to Nullify?


In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>