There is a trial going on in Nevada most people do not appear to be interested in. What Americans should be interested in are the tactics in play against the defendants.
…In order to convict the 4 defendants of assaulting federal officers, threatening federal officers, extortion, using firearms in crimes of violence and other offenses, prosecutors must emphasize agents’ testimony that the agents saw guns pointed at them while concealing all imagery which refutes such statements. The government’s strategy is therefore one of concealment and deception. Thus far the rulings of Judge Gloria Navarro seem to give prosecutors an avenue to carry out this strategy.
On the morning of July 10, 2017—just as defense lawyers were preparing for jury selection in the trial Judge Navarro granted the prosecution’s “motion in limine” prohibiting the defense from bringing up BLM conduct, or any of the events leading up to the April 12, 2014 protest. Prosecutors have been vigorously objecting to any attempt by the defense to introduce photos or video which contradicts prosecution witness testimony. And almost every government witness claims to have no recollection of sequence or timing, thereby making it difficult to show an image that clearly refutes the witness’s testimony.
On Thursday, July 27, 2017, an anonymous juror asked a simple written question to a witness: will the jury ever get to see images from different angles? Judge Navarro intercepted the question and told the jurors that most trials have no photos at all and are based only on witness testimony. It is an “unreasonable expectation,” Navarro told jurors, to expect to see photos from additional perspectives. Of course Navarro knows there are numerous pictures which would discredit the witness’s claims (as many were shown in the previous trial). But Navarro suggested that jurors are to focus on the testimony of the government witnesses.
Count me amongst those, being denied the opportunity to view all evidence including photographs and videos taken by law enforcement organizations on the scene, who consider the Bunkerville trial and all the verdicts that are reached as a result of it a sham and a travesty. A sham that was pursued by Obama’s DOJ and a travesty continued by President Trump’s administration.
No mention there of presumption of innocence from the former Congressman. Then again, it wasn’t on the Attorney General’s mind, either, was it?
Drain the swamp, already.