And a Malheur wildlife refuge juror explains his reasoning on the “Not Guilty” plea

Jerry Delemus - Bundy Ranch
Image: LA Times

From Steve’s post:

Everyone associated with the peaceful Bundy Ranch or Oregon Refuge “standoffs” was collected, arrested, and jailed without bail. After months of incarceration, despite a long list of charges, the government still had no case so they tried to get any or all of defendants to sign plea-bargains admitting guilt.

That actually didn’t work out. Defendants refused or were convinced that the government had no case. So the Feds finally put the Oregon defendants on trial for conspiracy and firearms charges. The jury found them not guilty.

We expect (hope for) a similar outcome with regard to the Bundy Ranch arrests, one of whom is Jerry DeLemus, still in jail in Nevada without bail on fabricated charges whose only purpose is to use the power of government to intimidate political opponents.

From Overlawyered:

* We didn’t intend to affirm or endorse the defendants’ views.

* We were certainly convinced that the defendants’ actions caused a lot of real-world disruption and damage.

* We don’t want to encourage other people to do stuff like that and regret the possibility that the acquittal might do that.

* The government had a complicated theory that, according to the law as the judge explained it to us, made the defendants’ subjective intentions more significant than the actual effects of their actions.

* We didn’t think the evidence about the defendants’ subjective intentions was strong enough to meet the legal standard for conviction under the government’s complicated theory as the judge explained the law to us.

* We’re frankly kind of puzzled as to why the government didn’t charge less complicated crimes like criminal trespass that might have been easier to get a conviction for.

The original piece in The Oregonian is here.