TexasCHLforum.com

In a stunning setback to federal prosecutors planning to try the Bundy family patriarch and two adult sons later this year, the jury acquitted Ricky Lovelien and Steven Stewart of all 10 charges, and delivered not-guilty findings on most charges against Scott Drexler and Eric Parker.

https://lasvegassun.com/news/2017/aug/2 ... -standoff/

Some got convicted.

Beiruty wrote:Some got convicted.

Not in this trial. They were all acquitted or no verdict. Maybe the feds will try two of them a third time...

Jury nullification.

"Peers". Indeed.

After reading the "Rules" The judge placed on the defendants testimony I would have voted for acquittal also!

These guys should buy a lotto ticket. You have the same chance of winning as of beating the Feds.

Wow.

ScottDLS wrote:These guys should buy a lotto ticket. You have the same chance of winning as of beating the Feds.

You'd think so, but I keep remembering that Randy Weaver beat the Feds in court too, and at the time, it seemed like the odds were against his victory just based on a cynical view of what I thought the courts would do, and how far I thought the Feds would go to try and bury him.

ELB wrote:Wow.

crazy2medic wrote:After reading the "Rules" The judge placed on the defendants testimony I would have voted for acquittal also!

It sounds like a sham trial, not an effort to get at the truth of what happened.

Barring the defendants from saying why they were there in the first place? This would be like a LEO being tried for pointing a gun at someone while exercising a "no knock" warrant and then the judge refusing to let them tell the jury why they were at the house in the first place. And that would be just as wrong.

The justice system isn't about justice, it is about conviction rates.

I believe a juror has the right to decide A. Was the law broken?, B. Is the law being applied fairly? C. Is the law itself fair and constitutional?

crazy2medic wrote:I believe a juror has the right to decide A. Was the law broken?, B. Is the law being applied fairly? C. Is the law itself fair and constitutional?

I've never been selected for a jury. I imagine you have to take an oath to enforce the law. If so, B and C are not what you have sworn to do. If you can't do that, say so and not be chosen to serve .

george wrote:

crazy2medic wrote:I believe a juror has the right to decide A. Was the law broken?, B. Is the law being applied fairly? C. Is the law itself fair and constitutional?

Watch your step! Thinking like that will get you in a lot of trouble.

From what I understand the charge here stemmed from someone pointing a gun at someone else. Pointing a gun at someone can be legal or illegal depending on the circumstances, so it seems like one of the very first questions would be "why did you point a gun at this person?" In this case the judge did not even allow that testimony so I could easily see a reasonable juror concluding that it was impossible to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the pointing of the gun was, in this specific case, illegal.