A federal judge in Nevada on Tuesday rejected prosecutors' request to reconsider her dismissal of the conspiracy case against Cliven Bundy, his two sons and Ryan Payne stemming from their 2014 armed standoff with federal agents over cattle grazing near Bunkerville.

U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro found prosecutors raised arguments she had already considered. She dismissed their contention that the dismissal of the case with prejudice was "unjust,'' or that she should have ordered a less severe sanction for their failure to share evidence that could assist the defense as required by the 1963 landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland.

"The Court's finding of outrageous government conduct was not in error,'' Navarro wrote in her 11-page ruling. "On the contrary, a universal sense of justice was violated by the Government's failure to provide evidence that is potentially exculpatory.''

Document: Judge's ruling upholding dismissal with prejudice

In January, Navarro found prosecutors engaged in a "deliberate attempt to mislead'' and made several misrepresentations to both the defense and the court about evidence related to a surveillance camera and snipers outside the Bundy ranch in early April 2014, as well as threat assessments made in the case.

The senior Bundy, 71, Ammon Bundy, 45, and Ryan Bundy, 42, and Payne, 34, were indicted on federal conspiracy and other allegations, accused of rallying militia members and armed supporters to stop federal officers from impounding Bundy cattle near Bunkerville. Government authorities were acting on a court order filed after Cliven Bundy failed to pay grazing fees and fines for two decades. The outnumbered federal contingent retreated and halted the cattle roundup on April 12, 2014.

In January, Navarro dismissed the Bundy prosecution, citing "flagrant misconduct" by prosecutors and the FBI in not disclosing evidence before and during trial. The judge listed six separate types of evidence withheld and ruled that each violation was willful.

In a motion urging the judge to reconsider the dismissal, prosecutors reiterated their unsuccessful argument that the evidence they failed to share until too late wouldn't have been admissible anyway because they didn't believe the defendants could argue that they acted in self-defense, were provoked or intimidated.

But the judge called that argument "outrageous'' and made it clear that the government was not allowed to withhold evidence that would enable the Bundys and Payne to argue they acted in self-defense, or evidence they could use to challenge the charges in their indictment.

In fact, her prior order should have placed prosecutors on notice that any evidence that could bolster a theory of self-defense might become relevant at trial, Navarro wrote.

"The evidence that the Government failed to disclose, such as the insertion and positioning of snipers and cameras surveilling the Bundy home, is evidence of provocation,'' Navarro wrote. "The Government's theory of prosecution relies on the fact that Defendants were acting offensively instead of defensively. The evidence that the Government failed to disclose could have assisted Defendants in showing that the officers were engaging in provocative conduct and that Defendants were not the aggressors. Therefore, the undisclosed evidence might have supported a theory of self-defense.''

The judge said she had considered alternative sanctions, such as a potential retrial or lesser penalties.

"However, the Court found that no lesser sanction would adequately deter future investigatory and prosecutorial misconduct,'' Navarro wrote.

The judge also said she concluded the indictment could not survive as a result of the government's violations, and did consider the potential ramifications that could result from the dismissal.

Ammon Bundy, who was released from custody in December and is now back at home in Idaho with his wife and children and trying to rebuild his fleet vehicle business, has become outspoken in recent days, arguing that the convictions of co-defendants Todd Engel and Greg Burleson, found guilty in an earlier trial, should be thrown out due to evidence that wasn't shared at their trials but only came out piecemail during pretrial hearings and the start of the Bundys' Nevada trial.

Burleson was sentenced in 2017 to more than 68 years in prison, found guilty of threatening a federal law enforcement officer, obstruction of justice and interstate travel in aid of extortion. Engel has yet to be sentenced for obstruction of justice and interstate travel in aid of extortion.

Bundy has made a video, attempting to reach out to jurors from the Engel and Burleson trial, or grand jurors.

"I just can't sit here and say this is OK,'' Bundy told The Oregonian/OregonLive. "I don't believe they got a fair trial. The judge probably thinks this is all done because the Bundys went home. But I'm not going to let it be done and forgotten.''

-- Maxine Bernstein

mbernstein@oregonian.com

503-221-8212

@maxoregonian