The investigation into alleged misconduct by FBI Hostage Rescue Team officers at the scene of Robert "LaVoy" Finicum's shooting in Harney County isn't relevant to the defense in the federal conspiracy case pending against Ammon Bundy and co-defendants, a federal judge ruled Friday.

Prosecutors last month revealed that the federal investigation into an FBI agent's apparent firing of gunshots at Finicum on Jan. 26 and the alleged FBI tampering with evidence at the scene had gone to a grand jury for review. They objected to any sharing of the evidence with defense lawyers.

Defense lawyers urged the judge to compel the government to turn over the investigative records regarding the FBI's alleged misconduct. They argued that prosecutors must share any evidence that could benefit the defense, including any material that could damage the credibility of a prosecution witness. Federal prosecutors countered that they won't call law enforcement officers involved in the investigation as witnesses in the case.

"The Court emphasizes this criminal case concerns only Defendants' alleged conduct in relation to the events at the MNWR (Malheur National Wildlife Refuge) as set out in the Superseding Indictment,'' U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown wrote in her order. "The very important questions whether the shooting of Lavoy Finicum was justified or whether FBI HRT officers engaged in misconduct at the time of that shooting are beyond the scope of this criminal case.''

The circumstances surrounding the FBI's firing of shots play no part in helping the defense explain why they came to the refuge armed with guns, since the shooting occurred more than three weeks after Ammon Bundy and supporters first arrived at the refuge, the judge said.

"The conduct of the two HRT officers at the time of the Finicum shooting cannot explain or corroborate defendants' putative intent to defend themselves with firearms at the MNWR because all of the alleged acts giving rise to the charges in this matter took place before the HRT officers' conduct occurred and was disclosed,'' Brown wrote. "Defendants, therefore, formed their relevant states of mind before they knew of the actions that make up the basis of the investigations.''

Ammon Bundy and other key figures were arrested as they were driving from the refuge to a community meeting in John Day on Jan. 26. Finicum, the occupation spokesman, evaded the police stop on U.S. 395 and swerved his truck into a snowbank to avoid an FBI and state police roadblock.

As he emerged from the truck, two shots were fired by an FBI agent with the Hostage Rescue Team, though none of the team members admitted to discharging their firearms, the Deschutes County sheriff alleges.

Oregon investigators concluded that one agent fired twice at the truck, hitting the roof and missing on the second shot. A state trooper later described to investigators seeing two rifle casings in the area where the agents were posted. Detectives investigating didn't find the casings, police reports indicated.

"Because the HRT officers did not disclose those shots after the incident and took affirmative steps to conceal the shots, the Deschutes County Sheriff also announced on March 8, 2016, that the actions of those officers were the subject of an ongoing investigation'' both by the Deschutes County Sheriff's Office and the federal Office of the Inspector General, the judge wrote.

LaVoy Finicum 19 Gallery: LaVoy Finicum

Ammon Bundy is one 26 defendants indicted on a charge of conspiring to impede federal workers at the wildlife refuge through intimidation, threats or force. A trial is set for Sept. 7. Seven defendants have entered guilty pleas in the conspiracy case, and an eighth defendant, Ryan Payne, another from Bundy's inner circle, is set to do so on Tuesday.

The judge also found that the investigative details of the FBI's actions were not relevant for co-defendant David Fry and three other refuge holdouts who were the last to surrender on Feb. 11, since they didn't learn of the alleged FBI coverup until after their arrests.

In related action, the judge denied defendants' motion for a change of venue. While acknowledging that the media coverage during the refuge occupation and since has been extensive, she found no showing that it's been prejudicial, Brown said.

"Whether the Court is capable of seating an impartial jury will be determined during a voir dire process in which the parties and the Court will be acutely attuned to the possibility of actual prejudice resulting from the media coverage of this case,'' Brown wrote.

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian