Good News! Bunkerville trial NOT GUILTY VERDICT!!

[ChristianAnarchist]

Pinch me I think I'm dreaming!! After all the dirty tricks and dishonesty of the goonerment the jury found two men not guilty of all charges and two men not guilty of the serious charges (hung on some minor charges).

"
Jurors acquitted two defendants of all charges Tuesday in a federal retrial that stems from the 2014 armed standoff in Bunkerville.
Montana resident Ricky Lovelien and Idaho resident Steven Stewart were acquitted of all 10 counts they faced and were expected to be released from custody Tuesday night.
The panel of six women and six men deliberated more than three days. The jury also acquitted Idaho residents Scott Drexler and Eric Parker of most charges but could not agree on other charges against the two men.
“What we have here is a win,” Parker’s wife, Andrea, proclaimed outside the federal courthouse in downtown Las Vegas.
Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre said prosecutors have not decided when they will retry Drexler and Parker on the remaining charges."


https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/2-men-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-bunkerville-standoff-case/

[Anti Federalist]

Needed some good news.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Oh, and guess which national news outlet is reporting the story... NONE!!

Not even Drudge...

[devil21]

The feds overreached (particularly the judge by excluding the entire context of the standoff from evidence) and looks like the jury saw right through it.

[phill4paul]

Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre said prosecutors have not decided when they will retry Drexler and Parker on the remaining charges.

How many fucking god damned times can you try someone?

[ChristianAnarchist]

How many $#@!ing god damned times can you try someone?

As many times as the goonerment goonsquad wants to...

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

As many times as the goonerment goonsquad wants to...

when at first you don't succeed try try try try again

[Ender]

Good News! Bunkerville trial NOT GUILTY VERDICT!!


YES!!!

[dannno]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2017/08/22/jury-refuses-to-convict-in-nevada-ranch-standoff/



Jury refuses to convict in standoff at Bundy ranch


By Ken Ritter | The Associated Press (http://www.sltrib.com/author/)
· 3 hours ago



Las Vegas • A federal jury in Las Vegas refused Tuesday to convict four accused gunman in a 2014 standoff with federal authorities near the Nevada ranch of states’ rights figure Cliven Bundy.



In a verdict that delivered a stunning setback to federal prosecutors, the jury acquitted Ricky Lovelien and Steven Stewart of all 10 charges against them.



Defendants Scott Drexler and Eric Parker were found not guilty of most charges against them. The jury did not reach verdicts on four charges against Parker and two charges against Drexler.




The results stunned a courtroom full of the defendants’ supporters, many of whom broke into applause after Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ordered Lovelien and Stewart freed immediately.



The judge set a hearing Wednesday to decide whether to free Parker and Drexler pending a decision by prosecutors whether to try them for a third time.



Prosecutors said the men conspired with Bundy family members and wielded weapons to threaten the lives of federal agents enforcing lawful court orders to remove Bundy cattle from public land after he failed to pay grazing fees.



Each man standing trial in Las Vegas faced 10 charges including conspiracy, interstate travel in aid of extortion, weapon possession and assault and threatening a federal officer.


Combined, the counts carried the possibility of more than 100 years in federal prison.



The four were among 19 men arrested in early 2016, nearly two years after the confrontation near the rural town of Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.



All 19 remained in federal custody, despite pleas from family members and attorneys for the release of those who have not been brought to trial. Bundy’s attorney, Bret Whipple, notes that his client is now 71.



Bundy stopped paying grazing fees decades ago, saying he refused to recognize federal authority over public land where he said his family grazed cattle since before the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was created.



The dispute has roots a nearly half-century fight over public lands in Nevada and the West, where the federal government controls vast expanses of land.



Calls for action have grown louder and more frequent in recent years with internet bloggers protesting federal agency decisions to designate protected areas for endangered species and set aside tracts for mining, wind farms and natural gas exploration.



Prosecutors characterize the standoff as an armed uprising by self-styled militia members who answered a Bundy family call to take up arms to prevent the lawful enforcement of multiple court orders to remove Bundy cattle from what is now the Gold Butte National Monument.



Defense attorneys cast the tense standoff as an ultimately peaceful protest involving people upset about aggressive tactics used by federal land managers and contract cowboys.



They point to skirmishes days earlier involving armed federal agents using dogs and stun guns against Bundy family members; the closure of a vast range half the size of the state of Delaware to collect Bundy’s cattle; and corrals set up as protest “First Amendment zone” protest areas for people.



A first trial earlier this year involved men who carried guns, but who prosecutors characterized as the least culpable of the co-defendants. It lasted two months and ended in April with a jury unable to reach verdicts for the four men, while finding two other defendants guilty of some charges.



..

[dannno]

I wonder what would have happened if Donald Trump didn't give the Afghanistan speech last night and the media was still busy talking about white supremacy :confused:

[ChristianAnarchist]

Still can't find any mention of this on any "major" news outlet. Even the great Drudge is staying silent on this one. Even "badblue.com" which claims to be "uncensored news" has no mention of it. If it weren't for some local papers we wouldn't even know about this. The only way I found out was on twitter I was getting some bundy tweets that linked to their facebook page and the links were coming up broken. I smelled a rat (facebook) and decided to do a search on bundy trial and that's how I found out...

[dannno]

Still can't find any mention of this on any "major" news outlet. Even the great Drudge is staying silent on this one. Even "badblue.com" which claims to be "uncensored news" has no mention of it. If it weren't for some local papers we wouldn't even know about this. The only way I found out was on twitter I was getting some bundy tweets that linked to their facebook page and the links were coming up broken. I smelled a rat (facebook) and decided to do a search on bundy trial and that's how I found out...

I found out a little while ago, just came in to post..

900155659307692032

[ChristianAnarchist]

I also edited the wikipedia page on the Bundy Standoff to reflect these new verdicts (with references). I wonder how long until the libtards change my edits...

[Swordsmyth]

LOL

The judge made a fool of herself.

[Cleaner44]

The little wins are fun. Ebb and flow.

[Natural Citizen]

I also edited the wikipedia page on the Bundy Standoff to reflect these new verdicts (with references). I wonder how long until the libtards change my edits...

Nope. They can't remove it so long as you cited within the established structure.

Good move, man. I forgot we could do that. It's been a while.

[jmdrake]

I wonder what would have happened if Donald Trump didn't give the Afghanistan speech last night and the media was still busy talking about white supremacy :confused:

:rolleyes:

1) Trump's Afghan speech is a complete betrayal of anyone who thought he might be non-interventionist and to try to find some "silver lining" from it is wishful thinking.

2) The media has not stopped talking about white supremacy.

3) Trump's Arizona speech erased any goodwill he was getting from the media based on their love affair with war from his Afghan speech.

4) The Bundy standoff has never been successfully tied to white supremacy.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Nope. They can't remove it so long as you cited within the established structure.

Good move, man. I forgot we could do that. It's been a while.

If you want to add or change some of the wording please do. I'm not the best writer but I saw no one else was updating it...

[ChristianAnarchist]

And there's still nothing in any major news outlet that I can find. This one is buried and will never see any national coverage. All I hear is <crickets...>

[ChristianAnarchist]

This article is pretty good. I'd like to see an interview of the two released and a video of them coming out of the jail...

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/2-men-acquitted-of-all-charges-in-bunkerville-standoff-case/

[Anti Federalist]

Jury nullification FTW.

[phill4paul]

I commend the jury for seeing through the prosecution and Judge Inquisitor Navarro's kangaroo court.

The verdicts are in for Bunkerville retrial in Las Vegas!

Out of 40 charges – 34 not guilty
Eric Parker 4 counts – hung jury
Scott Drexler 2 counts – hung jury
ZERO CONVICTIONS!

https://www.oathkeepers.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/20953412_1360942797358180_1987297856431422243_n.jp g

https://www.oathkeepers.org/bunkerville-retrial-verdicts-zero-convictions/

[donnay]

Flashback:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8P2RMwiTlk

[Origanalist]

:rolleyes:

1) Trump's Afghan speech is a complete betrayal of anyone who thought he might be non-interventionist and to try to find some "silver lining" from it is wishful thinking.

2) The media has not stopped talking about white supremacy.

3) Trump's Arizona speech erased any goodwill he was getting from the media based on their love affair with war from his Afghan speech.

4) The Bundy standoff has never been successfully tied to white supremacy.

Out of rep.

[donnay]

Everyone needs to look up the BLM agent, Daniel P. Love (https://redoubtnews.com/2017/05/allegations-agent-love-misconduct/). At this trial all sides were instructed to not bring up his name. Gee, I wonder why?

[dannno]

:rolleyes:

1) Trump's Afghan speech is a complete betrayal of anyone who thought he might be non-interventionist and to try to find some "silver lining" from it is wishful thinking.

2) The media has not stopped talking about white supremacy.

3) Trump's Arizona speech erased any goodwill he was getting from the media based on their love affair with war from his Afghan speech.

4) The Bundy standoff has never been successfully tied to white supremacy.

1. I don't care about speeches, I care about actions

4. EVERY progressive I've talked to thinks Bundy is a racist, so of course they will tie it to white nationalism or whatever, they don't care, if you are wearing a red hat they think you're a nazi...

[ChristianAnarchist]

1. I don't care about speeches, I care about actions

4. EVERY progressive I've talked to thinks Bundy is a racist, so of course they will tie it to white nationalism or whatever, they don't care, if you are wearing a red hat they think you're a nazi...

My red hat says "Ole Miss" on it so I'm a SUPER nazi...

[phill4paul]

My red hat says "Ole Miss" on it so I'm a SUPER nazi...

"Ole Miss" is racist and conjures horrific images of the Confederacy. You need a new hat. Blue in color that reads "New Miss."

[ChristianAnarchist]

"Ole Miss" is racist and conjures horrific images of the Confederacy. You need a new hat. Blue in color that reads "New Miss."

It's quite amazing to note that most of our "heros" are the football players and most of them are black. Don't let the lamestream media know, ok??

[jmdrake]

1. I don't care about speeches, I care about actions

The action of increasing military spending has already happened.....but I guess you missed that.



4. EVERY progressive I've talked to thinks Bundy is a racist, so of course they will tie it to white nationalism or whatever, they don't care, if you are wearing a red hat they think you're a nazi...

Well you should talk to more progressives. But more importantly, rank and file moderates haven't bought into that narrative. For a smear campaign to be successful it has to cover the entire political spectrum. Compare the number of people who think Bundy is racist to the number of people who think Bannon is racist and get back with me when you realize the truth of what's going on.

[dannno]

Well you should talk to more progressives. But more importantly, rank and file moderates haven't bought into that narrative. For a smear campaign to be successful it has to cover the entire political spectrum. Compare the number of people who think Bundy is racist to the number of people who think Bannon is racist and get back with me when you realize the truth of what's going on.

Dude, every progressive I've talked to about Bundy literally thinks that Bundy said slaves were better off during the times of slavery, which is a twisted version of what he said, and they literally think he wants black people to be slaves again.. that is totally white supremacist.. and ya they all think Bannon is racist too.

Trump campaigned on increased military (defense) spending, but also campaigned on a more non-interventionist (not totally interventionist) foreign policy.. I'm still holding him to that, there is a long ways to go, but of course I'm not totally stoked on the direction it has been going.

[jmdrake]

Dude, every progressive I've talked to about Bundy literally thinks that Bundy said slaves were better off during the times of slavery, which is a twisted version of what he said, and they literally think he wants black people to be slaves again.. that is totally white supremacist.. and ya they all think Bannon is racist too.

And so your experience is the totality of everything? You have become one with the universe and all knowing? Okay. Like I said, you should talk to more progressives. Most haven't even followed every aspect of the Bundy standoff. And frankly, Bundy's statement about slavery was...well...stupid. I don't think he's a racist, just an inarticulate bumblefvck.


Trump campaigned on increased military (defense) spending, but also campaigned on a more non-interventionist (not totally interventionist) foreign policy.. I'm still holding him to that, there is a long ways to go, but of course I'm not totally stoked on the direction it has been going.

Trump simultaneously campaigned on being more interventionist and being non-interventionist. Against Trump is the person that pushed for the war in Libya before later coming out against the same war. So far all of Trump's actions have been interventionist from his bombing of Syria to increased military spending to sending more troops into Iraq.

[jllundqu]

Love to see this made into a movie. People forget, but this was a major event in our nation's history, and the fact that they were acquitted is unreal to me. This was a real standoff that had the potential to go WACO and Ruby Ridge were it not for the numbers of patriots and cellphones recording the event.

Bravo, lady justice..... bravo.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/yes-rudy1.gif

[Valli6]

Everyone needs to look up the BLM agent, Daniel P. Love (https://redoubtnews.com/2017/05/allegations-agent-love-misconduct/). At this trial all sides were instructed to not bring up his name. Gee, I wonder why?
How come we know his name and this guy doesn't?
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/24/utah-rep-demands-name-of-fed-who-used-his-position-to-score-burning-man-tickets/


Utah Rep Demands Name Of Fed Who Used His Position To Score Burning Man Tickets
Ethan barton
08/24/2017

House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop asked a government watchdog Wednesday for an un-redacted version of a report showing that a senior law enforcement manager used his position for preferential treatment and threatened coworkers.

The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Inspector General (IG) released a report in January detailing how the unnamed senior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) official ensured that his family received special treatment during 2015’s Burning Man in Nevada. Local news outlets reported the agent’s name as Dan Love.

The report concerns the senior manager’s “serious misconduct,” Bishop, a Utah Republican, said in a letter to Deputy IG Mary Kendall. DOI has been without a permanent IG since 2009.

The agent “violated federal ethics rules when he used his influence with Burning Man officials to obtain three sold-out tickets and special passes for his father, girlfriend, and a family friend,” the January report said.

Burning Man is a massive festival with “a history of illegal drugs, assaults, violence, and other criminal activity, in spite of its largely peaceful reputation,” the report said.

The agent used federal law enforcement officers as escorts during the festival and transported his girlfriend, who shared lodging with him in a BLM trailer, in a BLM vehicle, according to the report.

The agent also tried influencing BLM employees’ interviews with investigators and threatened his coworkers.

“You will forget you saw that,” he told a colleague who asked about his girlfriend in the vehicle.

“You know, if you don’t side with me, grenades are going to go off and you’ll get hit,” the official told a college he thought complained about his potential ethics violations. :eek:

Bishop requested the IG hand over the documents by noon Thursday...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/24/utah-rep-demands-name-of-fed-who-used-his-position-to-score-burning-man-tickets/

[phill4paul]

This pushes the Bundys' trial back yet again while the sit and rot in jail!



Prosecutor vows 3rd trial for 2 in Bundy ranch standoff case

LAS VEGAS
The top federal prosecutor in Nevada vowed a third trial Wednesday for two men accused of armed assault on a federal officer in a 2014 standoff that stopped a cattle roundup near the ranch of states' rights figure Cliven Bundy.

"There's no question about us proceeding forward. Just so the record's clear," Acting U.S. Attorney Steven Myhre told Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro a day after a jury acquitted two defendants of all 10 charges but failed to reach verdicts on four charges against Eric Parker and two counts against Scott Drexler.

"Raising a firearm against a federal law enforcement officer, or any law enforcement officer, is a crime," Myhre declared as he lost a bid to keep the two men in federal custody until the next trial. "That's why we brought (Parker) to trial and ... intend to try him a third time."

Parker and Drexler were photographed during the standoff on a high Interstate 15 freeway overpass near Bunkerville pointing rifles through concrete sidewall barriers toward heavily armed federal agents in a dry riverbed below. The agents were guarding corrals of rounded-up cattle and facing flag-waving unarmed men, women and children.


Navarro ruled that Parker, 34, of Hailey, Idaho, and Drexler, 46, of Challis, Idaho, can return to their home state to await trial, which she scheduled Sept. 25. She also scheduled an Aug. 31 hearing to determine if the date will stand.

Keeping the September date for the two men would mean another delay starting trial for Bundy, four of his sons and six other defendants who have been in federal custody since their arrests in early 2016 despite invoking their rights to a speedy trial.

The judge had set a schedule to begin trial this year for Cliven Bundy, sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and co-defendants Ryan Payne and Peter Santilli. Another trial for the remaining six defendants would be held next year.

"I just never expected they'd try them a third time," Bret Whipple, Cliven Bundy's lawyer, said Wednesday when he learned of Myhre's comments. "It's such a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially when they were so close to acquittal."

In all, the jury of six men and six women reached not-guilty verdicts on 34 of 40 counts. Ricky Lovelien of Westville, Oklahoma, and Steven Stewart of Hailey, Idaho, were acquitted of all charges, even though jurors saw photos of them with weapons as well.

No verdicts were returned on assault on a federal officer, threatening a federal officer and two related of use of a firearm counts against Parker, and assault on a federal officer and brandishing a firearm charges against Drexler.

Parker's attorney, Jess Marchese, said Wednesday that a juror who remained at the courthouse on Tuesday told him that votes were 11-1 for acquittal on the six hung charges.

No defendants were found guilty of a key conspiracy charge alleging that they plotted with Bundy family members to create a self-styled militia and prevent federal Bureau of Land Management agents from enforcing court orders to remove Bundy cattle from arid desert rangeland in what is now Gold Butte National Monument.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/national-business/article168918172.html#storylink=cpy

[jllundqu]

I want to know what the defense's argument was. I'd genuinely be interested to hear the opening and closing remarks in that case. Did he convince the jury that they (the defendants) were in the right, despite a technical violation of law?

[phill4paul]

I want to know what the defense's argument was. I'd genuinely be interested to hear the opening and closing remarks in that case. Did he convince the jury that they (the defendants) were in the right, despite a technical violation of law?

There really wasn't a closing argument. The defense had been hamstrung at every turn. I think the jury saw what was happening and the collusion between prosecution and Judge Navarro. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512912-No-Justice-to-be-found-at-Bunkerville-retrial/page2

[Ender]

There really wasn't a closing argument. The defense had been hamstrung at every turn. I think the jury saw what was happening and the collusion between prosecution and Judge Navarro. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?512912-No-Justice-to-be-found-at-Bunkerville-retrial/page2

My POV, as well.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I want to know what the defense's argument was. I'd genuinely be interested to hear the opening and closing remarks in that case. Did he convince the jury that they (the defendants) were in the right, despite a technical violation of law?

A VERY unusual "defense" since there really wasn't any allowed. The "judge" basically ruled that they were not allowed to present any of their witnesses and even the defendants were gagged as to what they could say with one of them being shut down mid-sentence and ordered off the stand and all that he'd said stricken from the record. Since there was no defensive evidence allowed the defense lawyers agreed there was no point in closing argument as that would just give the prosecutor another rebuttal and there was no way to win. I've never heard of a defense that didn't even offer a closing argument before but the jury must have seen what a sham this was and ruled accordingly. I would like to know why after all that there was ONE holdout juror who would not vote not-guilty on a couple of the charges when they had just unanimously voted not-guilty on all the others...

[jllundqu]

A VERY unusual "defense" since there really wasn't any allowed. The "judge" basically ruled that they were not allowed to present any of their witnesses and even the defendants were gagged as to what they could say with one of them being shut down mid-sentence and ordered off the stand and all that he'd said stricken from the record. Since there was no defensive evidence allowed the defense lawyers agreed there was no point in closing argument as that would just give the prosecutor another rebuttal and there was no way to win. I've never heard of a defense that didn't even offer a closing argument before but the jury must have seen what a sham this was and ruled accordingly. I would like to know why after all that there was ONE holdout juror who would not vote not-guilty on a couple of the charges when they had just unanimously voted not-guilty on all the others...

Thanks. Sucks the prosecutor wants to waste more time and money on another trial.

[phill4paul]

A VERY unusual "defense" since there really wasn't any allowed. The "judge" basically ruled that they were not allowed to present any of their witnesses and even the defendants were gagged as to what they could say with one of them being shut down mid-sentence and ordered off the stand and all that he'd said stricken from the record. Since there was no defensive evidence allowed the defense lawyers agreed there was no point in closing argument as that would just give the prosecutor another rebuttal and there was no way to win. I've never heard of a defense that didn't even offer a closing argument before but the jury must have seen what a sham this was and ruled accordingly. I would like to know why after all that there was ONE holdout juror who would not vote not-guilty on a couple of the charges when they had just unanimously voted not-guilty on all the others...

//

Jury Selection in the new trial began this week with Judge Navarro immediately taking over the process.

From eyewitness accounts in the courtroom, we were told of the seemingly “rigged” system that the Judge used to select the jury she wanted.

Under Rule 24, The government has 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year. The court may allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants, and may allow the defendants to exercise those challenges separately or jointly.

In this case, with four defendants, the defense began with 10 strikes and the prosecution with 6. Each party was given one additional strike. Specifically, each defendant was given an additional strike and the prosecution should have been given an additional strike as well.

Prior to jury selection beginning, the prosecution filed several motions. One of these motions was to have the prosecution receive an equal number of additional strikes as the defense. This is not considered fair to the defense of multiple defendants, and is not normally allowed.

Keep in mind that the “system” is supposed to be set up with the presumption of innocence for the defendants, and the burden placed upon the prosecution.

Judge Navarro, however, agreed with that motion and granted the prosecution 4 additional strikes. She also ruled in favor of the prosecution on every single pre-trial motion!
Her ruling brought the total challenges to 14 for the defense and 10 for the prosecution.

During the course of jury selection, after all strikes for “cause” were completed, the process began to strike members from the jury pool by both sides. This process does not need explanation, as each side has their own criteria to decide who they want removed. The exception to this rule is called a “Batson Challenge”.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term Batson challenge, an objection to a peremptory challenge based on the standard established by the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. (Wikipedia)

This is important for several reasons. The Batson case itself was a civil rights case. The Supreme Court was ruling on a Prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude people strictly because of their race. This was, again, to keep the trial fair for the defendants.

Therefore, when a Batson challenge is made, the prosecutor needs to explain why his striking a juror was not based on their race. Most prosecutors can easily handle these questions, but it is important for them to put it on the record.

In today’s hearing, the challenges were such that the defense struck 7 men and 7 women. The prosecutions strikes were for 8 women and 2 men.

However, it was the prosecution that made an objection based on a Batson challenge and claimed that the defense was biased against men. They claimed that there were men removed from the jury pool wrongly. They accused the defense of gender-bias.

The defense should not have had to explain their criteria to the court. It is the defense, after all, and they do not have the burden of proof. However, Judge Navarro made the defense cite their reasoning for every challenge they made against the jurors, with one juror receiving what seemed to be special attention.

They explained that they felt an underlying deception from the prospective juror. Their ‘gut’ told them the person was not being honest. They did not want the person on the jury.

“There is a level of deception that has taken place here,” was the response from the defense team.

The judge made comments to the effect that the juror’s answers were what she would expect the defense to want.

They judge did not find any reason acceptable that the defense should have had 5 particular men removed, and she put them back on the jury. She re-seated these jurors despite the challenges from the defense. She effectively told the defense that they cannot have a say in who is kept or removed from the jury.

Not only did she put them back on the jury, but she took the 5 challenges completely away from the defense. They were now down to 9 when the prosecution still had 10. So the advantage again went straight to the government.
The defense, to their credit, then objected to the prosecution for the same Batson challenge, citing the fact that the prosecution used 80% of their challenges against women. Judge Navarro refused to rule on that objection and did not even open an inquiry on it. She completely brushed it under the rug and moved on.

This judge took complete control of selecting the jury by not allowing the defense their challenges. She had particular people she wanted on the jury (specifically juror number 296?) and she was not about to allow the defense to remove him. Could this be considered jury tampering?

[pcosmar]

Not Guilty

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IjCKH4Gz9-I/maxresdefault.jpg

and hopefully of the remaining piled on charges as well.

:D