Cliven Bundy was accused of conspiracy against the government. Instead, the Bundy trial showed it was the government that was conspiring against him.
On Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro of Nevada declared a mistrial in the case against Cliven Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and Ryan Payne over their involvement in the mid-April, 2014 standoff at the Bundys’ Bunkerville, NV ranch. She called the declaration the “only remedy” in the face of the government’s “willful” refusal to turn over thousands of pages of evidence.
“The failure to turn over such evidence violates due process,” she said, as quoted in The Oregonian which broke the story. Navarro ruled orally rather than in writing, and no complete video or audio was available as of printing.
Bundy, his sons, and Payne were charged with 15 counts of conspiracy, assault, threats against the government, firearms offenses, and obstruction among other accusations. The most serious counts came with a maximum 20 years in prison. Other participants in the standoff have pled guilty or been found guilty. Some have been sentenced to prison time and some are still awaiting sentencing.
Bundy brothers Ammon and Ryan were acquitted in 2016 of separate conspiracy charges related to their occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge earlier that year.
A federal conspiracy
According to the breaking report by The Oregonian, the federal prosecution team deliberately withheld over 3,300 pages of evidence that strongly supported the Bundys’ defense. The evidence was said to include:
- Reports showing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) placed a surveillance camera on the Bundy ranch, repaired it, and monitored it via live stream prior to the standoff. An FBI report from March 28, 2014 mentioned this camera, meaning it was in place at least two weeks before the standoff. Navarro noted that the prosecution had dismissed Ryan Bundy’s claims about cameras on the ranch as “fantastical.” She added that the government “falsely represented” the camera’s purpose and that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was aware of the reports detailing the camera.
- Log entry records of FBI snipers being “inserted” on to the Bundy ranch before the mid-April standoff. Throughout the standoff and before and during the trials, the government insisted there were no snipers involved and even alleged the defendants lied about snipers to draw supporters to the ranch.
- A March 3, 2015 FBI report that detailed a BLM agent on the Bundy ranch wearing tactical gear and carrying an AR-15 rifle on April 5 and 6, 2014.
- Numerous threat assessment documents made between 2011 and 2015 by the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit, several governmental counterterrorism units, the Gold Butte Cattle Impound Risk Assessment unit, and BLM law enforcement that suggested the Bundys would not resort to violence.
- Hundreds of pages of internal documents from the BLM showing that cattle grazing had not caused injuries to desert tortoises in the area. Desert tortoises are listed as endangered. It was because of this listing that Cliven Bundy’s grazing allotment stocking rate was curtailed and eventually revoked back in the early 1990s. This in turn led to his refusal to pay his grazing fees.
- A memo from Larry Wooten, the ousted lead investigator into the BLM’s handling of the standoff. The whistleblowing memo alleged extremely unethical, unprofessional, and possibly illegal behavior on the part BLM leadership, including Dan Love who had overseen the roundup of Bundy’s cattle. Love was fired from the BLM for misconduct in an unrelated case before the memo was released.
The withheld documents were eventually shared with the defense between Oct. 10 to Dec. 15. The deadline for evidence to be submitted had been Oct. 1.
The last piece of evidence turned over was the 18-page memo from Wooten. The Oregonian also broke the story of the memo, and quoted it as describing a “widespread pattern of bad judgment, lack of discipline, incredible bias, unprofessionalism and misconduct, as well as likely policy, ethical, and legal violations among senior and supervisory staff” at the BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.
Wooten reportedly brought the results of his investigation to the attention of Steven Myhre, Nevada’s acting U.S. attorney, and shared his concerns that the prosecutors of the Bundy case were withholding key witness statements. Shortly thereafter, he was taken off the investigation and related files were confiscated from his office by another BLM agent.
“These items were taken because they contained significant evidence of misconduct and items that would potentially embarrass BLM Law Enforcement Supervision,” the memo said, according to The Oregonian’s report.
“I am convinced that I was removed to prevent the ethical and proper further disclosure of the severe misconduct.”
Aftermath and moving forward
“To have an actual order from the court or for [Judge Navarro] to say those things does bring a lot of vindication to us,” Ammon Bundy told reporters outside the courthouse after the mistrial was announced.
“The judge said what she said for a reason, and there’s significance in her words,” said Bret Whipple, Cliven Bundy’s attorney. “I personally have never seen anything like this, especially in a case of such importance.”
The unusual nature of this case and how it proceeded drew the attention of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. He opened an investigation into the prosecution in the Bundy case.
“The Attorney General takes this issue very seriously and has personally directed that an expert in the Department’s discovery obligations be deployed to examine the case and advise as to next steps,” said Department of Justice spokesman, Ian Prior.
Myhre released a prepared statement following this announcement, saying, “We respect the ruling of the Court and take very seriously our discovery obligations. The Office welcomes the assistance of the Attorney General as we continue to evaluate the case in light of the Court’s ruling.”
Navarro will hear oral arguments on Jan. 8 whether the case should be a mistrial or a mistrial with prejudice. Declaring a mistrial with prejudice would mean the government could not retry Bundy and the other three men. If the case remains only a mistrial, another trial will likely occur, with the tentative date of Feb. 26 already set. — WLJ
