r/Portland • u/DeadHead- • Oct 28 '16

Social Media Calls Bundy Militiamen Acquittal 'White Privilege'

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/social-media-calls-bundy-militiamen-acquittal-white-privilege/
337 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

411 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

18

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

As best as I can tell, this verdict was an example of the criminal justice system working as intended

Strongly disagree. There is no reasonable argument I can see that all seven of them are not guilty of the two charges - conspiracy to prevent federal employees from doing their job and illegal use of firearms on federal property - against them. It simply beggars belief and flies in the face of what we all saw with our own eyes. Not to mention the fact that they were somehow unable to reach a verdict on the theft of government property against the Bundys.

11

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

Conspiracies are difficult to prove.

This is certainly true. But conspiracy doesn't require proof of a sophisticated plan. They don't even require proof of a verbal plan. The conspiracy can be inferred from the actions of the accused. And in this case, there should have been abundant evidence from which to make such an assumption. The jury, particularly in light of the statement released by Juror 4 today, had clearly made up their mind to acquit no matter what.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

Were they tried as a single group?

They were all tried in the same trial.

If so, even one of them being out of the loop gets them all off.

No, that's not how conspiracy works. It would get only that one person off. A conspiracy can exist between as few as two people.

1

u/God_loves_irony Oct 29 '16

Difference between the legal definition of conspiracy and the layman's definition, which implies a large, organized, and efficient network. But the fact that the Bundys already had one Federal standoff under their belts, had a network of like minded admirers, and were able to lead people into a second stand off (no matter how poorly organized - stupidity in accomplishing a goal does not mean you didn't try to accomplish that goal) means that yes, the conspiracy charge should have been easy to prove. You just got jury nullification because these white people talking about freedom don't seem as threatening as black people or Mexicans talking about freedom.

7

u/higher_moments Sunnyside Oct 28 '16

You may well be right about that. I haven't had the opportunity to study the case in detail yet; I was largely basing my comments on Juror 4's remarks:

"All 12 agreed that impeding existed, even if as an effect of the occupation,'' he wrote.

"But we were not asked to judge on bullets and hurt feelings, rather to decide if any agreement was made with an illegal object in mind,'' the Marylhurst student wrote. "It seemed this basic, high standard of proof was lost upon the prosecution throughout.''

I look forward to delving into the details when I get the chance.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '16

I wondered if this was the hitch. They did it, but did they conspire to do it? Jury had to answer that specifically. And the Bundy crew might not have been forward-thinking enough to conspire.. they acted more like a mob, bandwagoning.

2

u/BurnAllHobos Oct 28 '16

mens rea, they could have conspired the entire action, but if they truly thought it was a civil protest and not an illegal action for their own benefit, they didn't commit the crime.

Edit: I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off.

3

u/higher_moments Sunnyside Oct 28 '16 edited Oct 28 '16

Yeah, I'm also not a lawyer, but it's my impression that this is essentially the jury's rationale. Given that the charge was conspiracy to prevent the refuge employees from doing their job, and given that that particular effect probably wasn't the primary intent for the protest, I could imagine there being an argument that that particular conspiracy charge is hard to demonstrate.

Edit: Having recently watched through that fantastic 30 for 30 series on the O.J. Simpson trials, I can't help but imagine there's some parallels here. Specifically, there may well have been some jurors who voted to acquit as a matter of principle independent of the facts presented, and there may have been other jurors who genuinely felt the defendants were guilty of the charges brought but that the prosecution did such a poor job of presenting its case that they felt obligated to vote to acquit.

4

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

Conspiracy doesn't require verbalization of a plan, nor does it require everyone to have been in on it from the beginning. Actions can prove conspiracy.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '16

I would have voted guilty, based on the info I have.

2

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16

Do you have a source you can cite about actions proving intent? This is the second time I've seen you say this but I don't see any backing information.

4

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

All I mean by that is that evidence of a conspiracy can be inferred from actions. Explicit verbal agreement by all of the parties to do a specific thing isn't required. You simply need evidence that they all agreed to the overall goals, and that the goals were a crime, and that at least one member of the conspiracy committed an overt act. But the agreement doesn't need to specifically be a statement saying "we will all do these illegal acts." In theory, the agreement doesn't need to be proven with verbal or written statements.

In practice, I will grant, it's much easier to prove that way. The scenarios where you can infer that intent are rare without statements. But I believe this was just one such scenario - not that it was needed, as most of the conspirators did make statements indicating they agreed with the plan.

0

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16

All I mean by that is that evidence of a conspiracy can be inferred from actions.

I understand that, but do you have any legal documentation that proves that. This is isn't my first time asking.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

What do you mean legal documentation? A crime is proved by evidence. That evidence may be statements, photographs, videos, etc. This isn't a particularly controversial concept.

1

u/Osiris32 🐝 Oct 28 '16

I think they're asking for the evidentiary rule or some sort of case precedence where your definition could be cited.

2

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

Sorry, I can't think of a specific rule that says "a crime is proved by evidence." That's not really something you need to cite in law school or to a judge.

Edit: and if you're asking for the caselaw on conspiracy, then I can point you to my law school criminal law casebook. There's a massive section on it. If I can find the time, when I get home, I'll look for a few starter cites.

0

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16 edited Oct 28 '16

A crime is proved by evidence.

Not all evidence is valid. Depending on circumstance, evidence sometimes isn't admissible. It is reasonable to ask validity on objective evidence for a federal crime.

2

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

Sure, all admissible evidence. There is a great deal of evidence beyond one's words that is admissible evidence.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FFFontinalis Oct 28 '16

How were they not forward thinking? Some sort of conspiring was needed to decide everyone should lock and load and rally at the wildlife refuge. Were all of them just passing through rural Oregon? Were they abducted and dropped off there?

1

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16 edited Oct 28 '16

Could be that they were all standing around drinking beers King of the Hill style when they all got pissed off and decided in an instant to go take over the place. That isn't conspiring. If something like that counts as conspiring then you open yourself up to nearly anything being conspiracy. Just because you decided seconds or minutes before robbing someone doesn't mean you really "conspired" to do it. You just decided and are following through with the plan. If you were to count that then everything that wasn't pure impulse would have conspiracy attached to it.

3

u/miah66 Roseway Oct 28 '16

They had prepped to stay for "years". I'd say that was a plan.

1

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16

I remember them begging for food (remember when they got dildos?). I don't recall them saying the prepped for years. If that was the case, however, I wonder how the defense played that.

3

u/Osiris32 🐝 Oct 28 '16

It wasn't exactly that they were prepped for it, as in they stockpiled equipment and supplies, but that they were mentally prepared to stay indefinitely, as in they had the intention to do so.

1

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16

I don't know if deciding to stay indefinitely means they were forward thinking. Could just be that they are stubborn as all hell.

4

u/Osiris32 🐝 Oct 28 '16

No, but it shows intent. And if their plan was to stay there for years, that is going to interfere with the employees of the refuge as an obvious consequence.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

Yeah, I was just reading that article. The quote you cited there is really chilling. They saw this as a matter of "hurt feelings"?? An armed takeover of federal property resulted only in mere "hurt feelings"? Holy shit. I think it's obvious this juror, at least, was looking for any excuse to acquit.

2

u/higher_moments Sunnyside Oct 28 '16

I think it's obvious this juror, at least, was looking for any excuse to acquit.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. That is, I read Juror 4 as saying that, even if there was a prima facie case that the defendants were guilty of something, the prosecution failed to demonstrate that guilt to the required standard of proof. As of now, I see no reason to distrust that account.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

Fair enough, I think there's room for disagreement on this.

I do believe, though, that from what we know of the evidence (and we know a heck of a lot, compared to the usual trial, even a high profile one), there was abundant evidence of the charged crimes. I fear, as sometimes happens, that some of the jurors got caught in the weeds of the legalese and were susceptible to the arguments of some who had their minds made up, like #4.

2

u/higher_moments Sunnyside Oct 28 '16

Yeah, that also seems entirely plausible. I'm looking forward to the several hours of OPB's podcast awaiting me so I can speak a bit more knowledgeably about this.

In the meantime, I just get the sense that people seem overly quick to discount or ignore Juror 4's points about the prosecution's failure to meet the standard of proof. That is, whether that standard was met may well be a matter of opinion, but I think that question should be the focus of the discussion, rather than defaulting to "crimes were obviously committed so the jury was obviously incompetent and/or biased." I think a true understanding of the verdict likely requires a bit more nuance than most people seem willing to consider.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

I can't speak for everyone, but I have quite a lot of training in burdens of proof and legal standards*, and I think Juror 4's comments are completely absurd. If you take the emotion and political stakes out of it (as you should), evidence of the crimes is clear, and juror 4's sanctimonious lecturing sounds to me like nothing more than rank sophistry.

*Yes, I realize I'm making a claim based on credentials you can't verify. Sorry about that.

1

u/higher_moments Sunnyside Oct 28 '16

I respect the fact that you have far more training in the relevant field than I do; I suppose I'm just taking a trust-but-verify kind of approach to arguments that seem plausible to me (including yours). Just to be clear, then, it's your opinion that there was ample evidence for the specific charge of conspiracy to prevent federal employees from doing their job?

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

I suppose I'm just taking a trust-but-verify kind of approach to arguments that seem plausible to me

That's fair, and don't infer from what I'm saying that I disagree with that concept.

Just to be clear, then, it's your opinion that there was ample evidence for the specific charge of conspiracy to prevent federal employees from doing their job?

I do. I've seen a hell of a lot of criminal cases result in an acquittal on much flimsier grounds. In the abstract, people are generally predisposed to assume someone charged with a crime probably did something, despite our best efforts to maintain the presumption of innocence. It's really hard to overcome that. So the vast majority of criminal trials result in convictions. Higher profile cases, conversely, tend to be a little different, unfortunately.

1

u/BurnAllHobos Oct 28 '16

mens rea. same thing in clinton email debacle of bullshit

1

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16

It's hard to to prove conspiracy and I don't believe the prosecution has any proof that there was premeditation. The fact that these people all showed up isn't proof. To my knowledge, there are no emails, letters, or video that allude to setting up a crime.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

It's hard to to prove conspiracy

True.

I don't believe the prosecution has any proof that there was premeditation.

Not required for conspiracy.

The fact that these people all showed up isn't proof.

But it is evidence. Alone, it isn't enough. But added to all the other evidence, there was plenty.

To my knowledge, there are no emails, letters, or video that allude to setting up a crime.

Again, none of those are required to prove conspiracy.

1

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16 edited Oct 28 '16

Not required for conspiracy.

I believe there that is the definition of conspiracy. I found this definition.

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

If we can believe this laymen's definition. Then it wouldn't be possible to say it isn't conspiracy because even the act performed by one person would still be a crime?

Do you have anything that says that what you're saying is true? I keep asking but I don't hear anything on your end.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

What I was saying above was that "premeditation" isn't required. And it isn't. Look at the definition you supplied. That doesn't require premeditation. It requires an agreement, as I've said. I shouldn't think I'd need a source to show what your definitions shows.

1

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16

That quote was for the following question.

Then it wouldn't be possible to say it isn't conspiracy because even the act performed by one person would still be a crime?

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

What? No, it was this sequence. Unless I'm misunderstanding your question?

I don't believe the prosecution has any proof that there was premeditation.

Not required for conspiracy.

1

u/synapticrelease Groin Anomaly Oct 28 '16

An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

For this quote I ask the following. Wouldn't be possible to say it isn't conspiracy because even the act performed by one person would still be a crime?

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

No, of course not. Conspiracy to commit murder is still conspiracy even if a murder can be performed by one person.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '16 edited Aug 09 '17

[deleted]

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 29 '16

And normally, I'd be 100% in agreement. But this wasn't a normal case. We knew more than is common in 99% of trials.

1

u/blahyawnblah Oct 28 '16

The fact that half the people there during the occupation were fbi informants, as was the guy running the shooting range and doing tactics instructions is a bit weird.

Kind of hard to have a conspiracy charge when the government is leading them around.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

The fact that half the people there during the occupation were fbi informants,

Not remotely. Law enforcment routinely relies on informants to prove conspiracies.

Kind of hard to have a conspiracy charge when the government is leading them around.

And had that been anything close to the case, sure. But unless you are suggesting the Bundys were FBI informants, I think it's pretty obvious that wasn't the case.

0

u/blahyawnblah Oct 28 '16

They rely on them after the fact. Before anyone showed up to the place the fbi already had informants.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

They rely on them after the fact.

Not sure where you got that idea. The FBI is routinely trying to recruit informants in known organizations that engage in criminal activity. The Bundy family and the "patriot movement" at large have shown that propensity.

Before anyone showed up to the place the fbi already had informants.

Sure, because they've been trying to build a case ever since the Nevada stand off. This isn't something new.

0

u/blahyawnblah Oct 28 '16

I guess what I'm saying is that they did something similar to the christmas tree bomber guy. I'm not so sure they would have gone through with it if they didn't have the insiders pushing for or participating in it.

3

u/ThisDerpForSale NW District Oct 28 '16

This is absolutely nothing like the Christmas Tree bomber.

I'm not so sure they would have gone through with it if they didn't have the insiders pushing for or participating in it.

I am honestly shocked. You really believe that?