nevada judge delares mistrial against bundy men for BLM standoff

And my acolytes are obsessed with other members of the forum.

I'm a fucking disaster.

No wonder I am the ONLY unanimously named recipient of the 2017 DOTY award!

Congratulations! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

lol!!!!

lol!!!! Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

How on earth can you do that, when you love DICK so much?

Thus, and amusingly, Fed judges do wait for attys to really fuck up.
Contrastingly, local County and State judges have zero patience from page 1. The folks I work with have had a few attorneys disbarred with several handfuls sanctioned, and (you all will like this) slightly more than a handful of cops fired. Of course there's monetary settlements all around.
. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

So Fed judges don't follow the same set of laws local and state judges do.. I wonder why?

If you have a sense you are going to win the case based on the government's evidence and the defense cross-examination of the government's witnesses, then it is "punishment" to the defense if the Judge declares a mistrial and in effect gives the government another bite at the apple for a host of reasons, not the least of which the defendant will have to pay the attorney for another trial. A mistrial is not merely "procedural" (as in in the rules of procedure) it can be tactical as well. So as having a detrimental effect on either side it as the effect of a punishment, whether that is the intent of the decision or not.

BUT how is that punishing the PEOPLE WHO Screwed the pooch and withheld evidence (THE PROSECUTION)??
If anything it's REWARDING THEM.

So Fed judges don't follow the same set of laws local and state judges do.. I wonder why?



BUT how is that punishing the PEOPLE WHO Screwed the pooch and withheld evidence (THE PROSECUTION)??
If anything it's REWARDING THEM. Originally Posted by garhkal

Garhkal,
Once again comprehension issues.
Of course the judge went mistrial.
Required.
LL inferred that the prosecution was punished. Nope. Appropriate punishments would include bar complaints, possible disbursement, etc.
Getting a do-over usually does help prosecution as they have seen what doesn't work and they've seen some of defense strategy.
My point on state and county is cause those judges are dealing with local cops and local attorneys who have not yet learned to cover their asses.
Any one claiming to have law knowledge on criminal stuff, umless they've worked the dance floor in front of a judge on those issues, is usually blowing wind.

Garhkal,
Once again comprehension issues.
Of course the judge went mistrial.
Required.
LL inferred that the prosecution was punished. Nope. Appropriate punishments would include bar complaints, possible disbursement, etc.
Getting a do-over usually does help prosecution as they have seen what doesn't work and they've seen some of defense strategy.
My point on state and county is cause those judges are dealing with local cops and local attorneys who have not yet learned to cover their asses.
Any one claiming to have law knowledge on criminal stuff, umless they've worked the dance floor in front of a judge on those issues, is usually blowing wind. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

deliberately withholding evidence is pretty serious. it at least warrants a contempt of court charge.

seen lots of stories where the prosecution did that to convict people of long sentence only to find out that they had evidence to clear them of such charges. I've yet to find one article where the (current or retired) district attorney or prosecutors were punished for their actions after the fact.

deliberately withholding evidence is pretty serious. it at least warrants a contempt of court charge.

seen lots of stories where the prosecution did that to convict people of long sentence only to find out that they had evidence to clear them of such charges. I've yet to find one article where the (current or retired) district attorney or prosecutors were punished for their actions after the fact. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

That’s the very least we’ll see rise from the Mueller investigation.

Pressure serious?

You bet your arse it is.

Of course, you’ve still got your bookmarks to play with, don’t you?

That’s the very least we’ll see rise from the Mueller investigation.

Pressure serious? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

don't know what you are thinking, this is not even about the Meuller investigation.

You bet your arse it is.

Of course, you’ve still got your bookmarks to play with, don’t you?

if you want to take part in this debate, leave out the bookmark crap out.

Garhkal,

LL inferred that the prosecution was punished. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

You "inferred" to appear "knowledgeable"! That's not the first time, nor will it be the last, you do that. I did not "infer" THE PROSECUTION WAS PUNISHED! I said it could punish and gave examples. Below are some more.

Because you lack sufficient experience you play the definition game, but I perceive "punishment" to be broader than those identified sanctions available in the Federal Rules (in this case).

If you don't believe that a Federal prosecutor having a mistrial of a case because of a failure to produce information in discovery that should have been disclosed is not "punishment" then you haven't been around long enough to know anything about the inner workings of the U.S. attorney's office as it relates to the DOJ.

Getting fired is "punishment" and having that "taint" on ones professional status is "punishment" as a stigma. In addition there are ethical standards for prosecutors that can be imposed by the bar association issuing their state license and the Federal court authorizing them to practice before that court.

You don't know what the Judge will do when the case is over!

But, and you ignored it, I stressed how that punishes the defendant, who is not being financed by the government/taxpayers. I even connected the difficulty these defendants are having maintaining their ranch business as was reported.

All you have is a childish "butt hurt" form you keep handy! And perhaps you should NOT get your information from TV shows when the defendant and his attorney celebrate over a mistrial!

deliberately withholding evidence is pretty serious. it at least warrants a contempt of court charge.

seen lots of stories where the prosecution did that to convict people of long sentence only to find out that they had evidence to clear them of such charges. I've yet to find one article where the (current or retired) district attorney or prosecutors were punished for their actions after the fact. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

You probably won't see a lot of publicity, and it depends on when the violation occurred. If it's been long enough the guilty prosecutor may no longer work for the prosecutor's office or may not even practice law any longer.

24/7 news media loses interest real fast. Look at hurricane season! One would believe that everything is back to normal!

It depends on the jurisdiction, but Federal judges get real "independent" after their appointments and frequently don't play "footsie" with the U.S. Attorney's Office (unless they came out of that office and then it's a problem sometimes) and don't worry about getting elected or re-appointed. Contrary to what may have been implied they are not going to allow either side to engage in activities that put the case in jeopardy of being reversed on appeal or having to be retried (which a reversal may require).* In fact I haven't known too many judges who are not interested in whether their cases get reversed or not.

*No doubt the motivation for the mistrial in the Bundy case.

As a follow up and consistent with what I said about the "connection" between the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney's Office:

Headline:

"After Bundy mistrial, Sessions launches an investigation into the case and calls for a review of the Nevada office in charge of its prosecution"

http://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-wo...-broad-review/
\



If you read the article the Judge made a finding of "wilfull" withholding with respect to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that's just like the "perjury" finding by the Federal Judge on Bill Clinton that resulted in his disbarment in Arkansas.

Here is a further quote from that article:

The judge cited 3,300 pages of previously undisclosed FBI and Bureau of Land Management records relating to the standoff that should have been provided to the defense and set a Jan. 8 hearing to decide whether charges should be dismissed outright.

"Unique-Carpenter" is "unique" but not in a good way!

LL:

Way back:
Garhkal posted: …hope the judge imposes punishment…
LL responds: Just did…

My earlier point was: nope, just mistrial
I disagree that a mistrial in itself is "punishment" for a prosecutor.

Your current point just above where there will be a hearing on the withholding evidence issue is a correction from your earlier statement. I would agree that could result in punishment. But that's not what you presented earlier.

LL:

Your current point just above where there will be a hearing on the withholding evidence issue is a correction from your earlier statement. I would agree that could result in punishment. But that's not what you presented earlier. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Actually, not. But I've had experience with novices like you.

And I've also had experiences with folks much more experienced than you! So, slice it anyway you want it and as thin as you want it, it is still bologna you are serving.

It does appear the current U.S. Attorney and at least some of his assistants are "suffering" from the consequences of their "wilful" (according to the Judge) actions and inactions. To put it in perspective for you, they would be better off with a $100 fine and be done with it. So there goes your lameass evaluation.

Are you another one of the ignorants who claimed the ACA mandatory "assessment" was a "fine" or "punishment" and still do? Was Bill Clinton "punished" for lying under oath in a Federal lawsuit?

Now go argue with yourself or someone who actually believes you know what you are talking about! Because you are struggling in this discussion.

LL,
if you're going to debate with insults, at the least make them imaginative instead of spewing repetitive drool.
And have a merry.

If you don't believe that a Federal prosecutor having a mistrial of a case because of a failure to produce information in discovery that should have been disclosed is not "punishment" then you haven't been around long enough to know anything about the inner workings of the U.S. attorney's office as it relates to the DOJ. Originally Posted by LexusLover

No i have not. BUT social stigma/taint, on ones record to me is NOT Punishment for what he did..

So let's hope the judge imposes PUNISHMENT on the Feds for withholding that evidence.. Originally Posted by garhkal

Just did. The U.S. Attorney's Office has a decision to make. Disclose the information or don't prosecute. If providing the information now "cures" any prejudice to the defendants then any further sanction may not be warranted, although a Federal judge has the power to award attorney fees and costs against a lawyer who violates rules and rights.

I suppose a determination will have to be as to the motivation or intent of the withholding of the information and it depends on the information as it relates to the crucial issues in the case. A factor can be the seriousness of the charges against the defendants AND how strong the Judge believes the case to be without the withheld information. Originally Posted by LexusLover

IMO i can't see there being any LAWFUL reason for this info to have been withheld in the first place. SO THE ONLY reason left would be malfeasance, by wanting to hide something, ERGO obstruction of justice charges.. Originally Posted by garhkal

Just because YOU can't see it doesn't mean it's not there!

Like I've mentioned before about these "critiques" of lawsuits and predictions about outcomes .... only a fool would do that ... particularly if they don't know more about it than the media does.... and "we" .... most of us .... see it happening repeatedly by which the media pundits offer their "evaluation" and later publish the actual outcome on the back page behind the classifieds! Originally Posted by LexusLover

No LL, declaring a mistrial is not punishment. Just procedural.

However, once a judge is hacked off, one itty bitty thing will cause punishment. Shame that the punishment is usually a slap on the wrist. IMO, prosecutors simply construct a careful script that somehow shows that their orchestrated "errors" are not intentional and were inadvertent.

Thus, and amusingly, Fed judges do wait for attys to really fuck up. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

If you have a sense you are going to win the case based on the government's evidence and the defense cross-examination of the government's witnesses, then it is "punishment" to the defense if the Judge declares a mistrial and in effect gives the government another bite at the apple for a host of reasons, not the least of which the defendant will have to pay the attorney for another trial. A mistrial is not merely "procedural" (as in in the rules of procedure) it can be tactical as well. So as having a detrimental effect on either side it as the effect of a punishment, whether that is the intent of the decision or not. Originally Posted by LexusLover

For those who actually believe a mistrial doesn't punish a defendant, then read the above .... being in jail, having to bond out, and pay an attorney AGAIN, IS "PUNISHING" and hardly merely a "procedural" matter!

For that matter implementing a death penalty decision is a "procedural matter"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Garhkal,
Once again comprehension issues.

Of course the judge went mistrial. Required.????

LL inferred that the prosecution was punished. Nope. Appropriate punishments would include bar complaints, possible disbursement, etc. ????[/SIZE]

Getting a do-over usually does help prosecution as they have seen what doesn't work and they've seen some of defense strategy.

My point on state and county is cause those judges are dealing with local cops and local attorneys who have not yet learned to cover their asses.

Any one claiming to have law knowledge on criminal stuff, umless they've worked the dance floor in front of a judge on those issues, is usually blowing wind. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

deliberately withholding evidence is pretty serious. it at least warrants a contempt of court charge. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

You "inferred" to appear "knowledgeable"! That's not the first time, nor will it be the last, you do that. I did not "infer" THE PROSECUTION WAS PUNISHED! I said it could punish and gave examples. Below are some more.

Because you lack sufficient experience you play the definition game, but I perceive "punishment" to be broader than those identified sanctions available in the Federal Rules (in this case).

If you don't believe that a Federal prosecutor having a mistrial of a case because of a failure to produce information in discovery that should have been disclosed is not "punishment" then you haven't been around long enough to know anything about the inner workings of the U.S. attorney's office as it relates to the DOJ.

Getting fired is "punishment" and having that "taint" on ones professional status is "punishment" as a stigma. In addition there are ethical standards for prosecutors that can be imposed by the bar association issuing their state license and the Federal court authorizing them to practice before that court.

You don't know what the Judge will do when the case is over!

But, and you ignored it, I stressed how that punishes the defendant, who is not being financed by the government/taxpayers. I even connected the difficulty these defendants are having maintaining their ranch business as was reported.

All you have is a childish "butt hurt" form you keep handy! And perhaps you should NOT get your information from TV shows when the defendant and his attorney celebrate over a mistrial! Originally Posted by LexusLover

You probably won't see a lot of publicity, and it depends on when the violation occurred. If it's been long enough the guilty prosecutor may no longer work for the prosecutor's office or may not even practice law any longer.

24/7 news media loses interest real fast. Look at hurricane season! One would believe that everything is back to normal!

It depends on the jurisdiction, but Federal judges get real "independent" after their appointments and frequently don't play "footsie" with the U.S. Attorney's Office (unless they came out of that office and then it's a problem sometimes) and don't worry about getting elected or re-appointed. Contrary to what may have been implied they are not going to allow either side to engage in activities that put the case in jeopardy of being reversed on appeal or having to be retried (which a reversal may require).* In fact I haven't known too many judges who are not interested in whether their cases get reversed or not.

*No doubt the motivation for the mistrial in the Bundy case.

As a follow up and consistent with what I said about the "connection" between the DOJ and the U.S. Attorney's Office:

Headline:



http://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-wo...-broad-review/
\



If you read the article the Judge made a finding of "wilfull" withholding with respect to the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that's just like the "perjury" finding by the Federal Judge on Bill Clinton that resulted in his disbarment in Arkansas.

Here is a further quote from that article:



"Unique-Carpenter" is "unique" but not in a good way! Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL:

Way back:
Garhkal posted: …hope the judge imposes punishment…
LL responds: Just did…

My earlier point was: nope, just mistrial
I disagree that a mistrial in itself is "punishment" for a prosecutor.

Your current point just above where there will be a hearing on the withholding evidence issue is a correction from your earlier statement. I would agree that could result in punishment. But that's not what you presented earlier. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Actually, not. But I've had experience with novices like you.

And I've also had experiences with folks much more experienced than you! So, slice it anyway you want it and as thin as you want it, it is still bologna you are serving.

It does appear the current U.S. Attorney and at least some of his assistants are "suffering" from the consequences of their "wilful" (according to the Judge) actions and inactions. To put it in perspective for you, they would be better off with a $100 fine and be done with it. So there goes your lameass evaluation.

Are you another one of the ignorants who claimed the ACA mandatory "assessment" was a "fine" or "punishment" and still do? Was Bill Clinton "punished" for lying under oath in a Federal lawsuit?

Now go argue with yourself or someone who actually believes you know what you are talking about! Because you are struggling in this discussion. Originally Posted by LexusLover

LL,
if you're going to debate with insults, .... Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

You're "debating"? I'm not. Kinda like you "dance" in front to Judges?

My discussion explains why a Mistrial in this context is a punishment in effect for both sides ... if another trial is ordered and the judge does not dismiss the indictment(s).

The general definition of "punishment" is:

"Punishment is the infliction of some kind of pain or loss upon a person for a misdeed."

Rarely, if ever, is a ruling that affects the "substance" of a case merely "procedural" as you claim. Spewing bullshit and your little "butt hurt" posting is your chickenshit way of marginalizing.... and it's transparent. "Dance" in front to a Judge? Just like your comment about a "mistrial" is "required" ("mandatory?)!!! It's discretionary.

This is what I posted in #10:

Quote:
"(Judge) Navarro faulted federal prosecutors for failing to turn over all evidence to defense attorneys, including records about the conduct of FBI."

From the linked article.

If you look further you will see the report disclosing she (the Judge) made the ruling that the withholding was "wilful"!

You're statement that a "mistrial" usually benefits the state/government/prosecutor is out of touch with reality and defies what actually occurs in most criminal trials, because the prosecution has the burden of proof and puts on its case first, which means the government's "case in chief" will usually be fully disclosed when a mistrial is granted or if not "fully disclosed" then the government hasn't had a chance to see and hear the Defendant's case (and I'll explain that later in the context of a federal criminal trial).

99% of the time before a jury is even selected for the Federal criminal trial BOTH SIDES through the PreTrial Conference have SHARED their evidence/exhibits and witness lists, as well as had an indepth discussion with the Judge in the presence of one another about "issues" in the case including submission of a proposed/drafted charge to the jury. In Federal cases there is not much "trial by ambush" as in many state jurisdictions.

So how could the U.S. Attorney's Office "benefit" by a mistrial! ..... Perhaps you should ask General Sessions! ...

The AUSA has laid his/her "cards on the table" in so far as "trial strategy"... and any government witnesses who have testified have sworn testimony that "locks them into their initial facts" so they can only change at their own peril of being incredible.

And apparently others agree with my assessment:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nment-land-use

A judge declared a mistrial in the conspiracy case against rancher Cliven Bundy and his family, dealing a major blow to the US government and another victory for those who have long fought federal regulators over land rights.

A Nevada federal judge ruled Wednesday that prosecutors willfully withheld evidence in the case against Bundy and two of his sons, who were facing a slew of felony charges stemming from a 2014 standoff with federal agents at the family’s ranch north of Las Vegas. The mistrial marks the latest in a series failures by the US government to prosecute the ranching family and their supporters, who were found not guilty in a surprise verdict last year surrounding an armed takeover of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon.

Thanks for being a Grinch today, LLiarMan.

Santa will not be dropping anything but coL in your coal chute,