Citing the violation of a landmark case regarding the presentation of evidence, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision of dismissing with prejudice the indictment charges against Cliven Bundy; two of his sons, Ryan and Ammon Bundy; and Ryan Payne.
The case originates from an infamous standoff between Cliven Bundy, his sons, groups of dedicated followers and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In early 2014, BLM began putting into place a large-scale operation to impound Bundy’s cattle due to unpaid grazing fees. A standoff ensued after the seizure of the cattle and a group supporting the Bundys overtook the area where the seized cattle were being impounded. Federal agents stood down from the impoundment site and left the cattle for the Bundys to reclaim.
In March 2016, a federal grand jury indicted 19 defendants, including Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and Payne, for impeding federal officers, threatening federal law enforcement, and extortion, along with conspiracy to commit these crimes.
In December 2017, U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro found that prosecutors had failed to turn over documents that could be used to support the defense’s case.
The landmark case cited was Brady v. Maryland, which states the prosecution must present exculpatory evidence—clearing guilt or blame—to the defense. The Supreme Court ruled the suppression of exculpatory evidence violates the due process.
Central to the opinion written by 9th Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee was the government’s presentation of evidence “days into the defendant’s trial,” which was useful to the defense and needed to be presented to them prior to the trial.
The government’s case in the district court asserted the defendants lied regarding being surrounded by snipers as a ploy to gather armed supporters. Bybee wrote in the opinion, “Had the defendants been able to proffer a basis for genuinely believing government snipers surrounded the Bundy Ranch, they potentially could have negated the government’s scienter theory”—an intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.
The evidence withheld included surveillance cameras, FBI interviews regarding snipers, Tactical Operations Center log records, and threat assessments.
“The panel held that the record amply supports the district court’s conclusion that the defendants suffered substantial prejudice in not being able to prepare their case fully, refine their voir dire strategy, and make stronger opening statements,” the opinion stated.
Cliven Bundy’s attorney, Larry Klayman, said the family is relieved “this nightmare is over.”
“After two years of illegal incarceration, [my client] had to endure a sham and fraudulent trial where exculpatory evidence was hidden,” Klayman said in a statement.
In December 2017, a federal judge declared a mistrial against the Bundys and Ryan Payne. U.S. District Judge Navarro found prosecutors had failed to turn over documents that could support the defense’s case. In May of this year, the Justice Department stated their errors were “inadvertent” as they were cautious in disclosing BLM surveillance footage with protecting witnesses against violence. — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
