After Prosecution "Missteps" in Bundy Trial, is it All Over? - Jury Sent Home, Will Be Called Back "If They Are Needed"

by: Tim Brown 
On Monday, reports of prosecutor misconduct emerged in the Bundy Ranch trials, but you probably didn't hear that in the mainstream media nor much of the alternative media.
I had been on vacation and was very limited in what I was able to write on during that time, but having come back, I've seen some of the reports, mainly from Shari Dovale at Redoubt News, who has been keeping the public informed, along with a few others of what is taking place in Nevada at what has been deemed "The Trial of the Century.
First, let me allow Terry Noonkester to update you on the misconduct aspect in the case by the prosecution and we'll move on to whether this may result in the end of the trial.

Prosecutorial misconduct has affected the USA v Cliven Bundy trials in Las Vegas in regards to pretrial detention, convictions, plea agreements, and sentencing. Just within the first few weeks of the Tier I group trial, there is evidence that the prosecution has used false information to keep the defendants incarcerated.  Other evidence proves the Bundy’s and militia leaders did not make false statements to incite the protest, possibly eliminating at least one of the criminal charges.  Due to the serious affect of the mishandling of evidence by the prosecution, the defense attorney’s continued to make motions for a mistrial and dismissal of the case.

The prosecutions misrepresentation’s and withholding of evidence may have started by influencing the grand jury to indict on a total of sixteen charges.  Misrepresentation at the grand jury level could possibly void the basis of even plea agreements accepted by some Bundy Ranch Protest defendants.  If a criminal charge is proven to be based on false government claims, can the government continue to enforce that charge in a plea agreement?  According to contract law, an agreement based on false information is not binding nor enforceable.

There has also been extreme pressure applied to the defendants to accept plea agreements.  Historically, prosecutors across the country gained leverage when bargaining with defendants after the passage of the Bail Reform Acts of 1964 and 1984.  These acts allowed federal judges to deny bail to defendants when they were indicted for noncapital cases.
The USA v Bundy case was defined by the court as a ‘complex case’ giving the prosecution up to five years to complete the trials and still conform with the speedy trial requirements.  Pre-trial detention of such great duration fosters desperation in the defendants, causing many to buckle under the pressure when a plea bargain is offered.

Noonkester then listed those in the Bundy shakedown who have accepted plea bargains, many of which have families and believed they were facing such a corrupt system that their chances of having a fair trial in light of facing most, if not all, of their life in prison seemed reasonable.  Others were convicted, but their convictions should be called into question considering the obvious suppression of evidence by the prosecution that came out in the latest trial.
Noonkester comments, "As the third trial proceeds, more is revealed about government overreach and prosecutorial misconduct.  Greg Burleson’s and Todd Engel’s convictions must be questioned in light of all the evidence withheld in their trial.  Plea deals need to be reevaluated to make sure that these men haven’t pled guilty to a criminal charge that will later found to be fabricated by the government."

"The author and member of Ammon Bundy’s defense team, Roger Roots, describes the condition of the federal criminal justice system aptly in his book “The Conviction Factory, The Collapse of America’s Criminal Courts,” Noonkester added.  "Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Morgan Philpot, and his team are relying on donations at AmmonBundyDefense.com."

So, is this impacting the trial?  Has it merely brought it to a standstill or are we about to see a mistrial declared or possibility a dropping of the charges?
Shari Dovale reported on Monday that Judge Gloria Navarro said, "The jury won’t be called back before [December 20th], if they are needed.”
If needed?  Aren't they a part of the very court that is weighing the evidence here?  Perhaps the government's leniency in the matter of releasing the defendants in the case during trial is only a sign of what's to come in hopes that they can make all this go away quietly because they know they have wasted millions of dollars, violated the rights of the people and lied to the American public about what was all going on.

However, Dovale reported:
Judge Navarro discussed in open court the numerous violations made by the prosecution and the agents of the BLM and FBI in relation to this case.
Multiple Brady violations topped the list, with many exculpatory items not being turned over to the defense teams. Items such as the Threat Assessment reports, names of potential witnesses, reports from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reprimanding the BLM for not enforcing the court orders for years, and many more.
There are at least seven Brady violations the judge referred to in court today. Additionally, there were violations of evidence not being turned over in a timely manner, which are referred to as ‘Giglio’ violations, pointing to the court decisions of Giglio v. United States .

After the jury was sent home, the courtroom was cleared of spectators so the principle players could immediately go into another of the now infamous super-secret sealed hearings.
This court trial has become known for their overuse of the sealed hearing rules. A majority of the evidence has been sealed from the public view, bringing questions as to why the government is hiding so much information from the citizens. Our Constitution guarantees public trials, yet the government does not hold themselves accountable to the US Constitution, as their representative so testified.

So, as it stands now, it would appear the government is in the hot seat, but keep in mind that the government is acting as both plaintiff and prosecutor with a judge rooster guarding the hen house, but how long will they be able to maintain the charade here, or are they actually waking up to the fact that there was no crime actually committed here except on the government's behalf?
Time will tell.  Until December 20...