Feds move to drop charges against remaining Bundy standoff defendants

Federal prosecutors want to drop charges against the four remaining defendants in the Bundy Ranch standoff case, including two militia members from Arizona.

Attorneys for the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office filed a motion late Wednesday asking the court to dismiss the remaining cases "in the interest of justice."

Dave and Mel Bundy, and Arizona residents Joseph O'Shaughnessy and Jason Woods, were scheduled to stand trial Feb. 26.

They were the last of 19 defendants originally charged with taking up arms against federal agents to prevent a roundup of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy's cattle from public lands in 2014.

The motion is the latest twist in a legal saga that has included three trials, two acquittals, a handful of plea deals, two mistrials and a judge's finding of prosecutorial misconduct.

READ MORE: What you need to know about the Bundy Ranch standoff

It represents an ignominious loss for prosecutors. They saw their cases disintegrate last month when a judge dismissed charges against Cliven Bundy and other standoff leaders, saying federal prosecutors had violated the men's rights to a fair trial by withholding evidence.

In the motion, federal prosecutors referenced a separate motion Wednesday asking the judge to reconsider the dismissal of charges. In the interim, they said, they had no choice but to drop the remaining cases.

"The government believes that under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to move to dismiss the superseding indictment," they said.

Federal prosecutors handling the case could not be reached for comment Wednesday. They have so far refrained from any public comment.

MORE ABOUT IT:

Federal agent alleges U.S. misconduct, cover-up in Bundy Ranch trial

Prosecutors ask judge to reconsider

In their motion for reconsideration, prosecutors maintained that the court erred in dismissing the case. They said U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro should have considered lesser sanctions.

Navarro in January said federal prosecutors acted recklessly and engaged in a "deliberate attempt to mislead and distort the truth" by failing to turn over evidence that could have helped exonerate defendants.

She declared a mistrial with prejudice, meaning Cliven Bundy, two of his sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, and militia member Ryan Payne cannot be recharged.

Navarro cited six pieces of evidence that the Nevada U.S. Attorney's Office failed to disclose that were favorable to the defense and could have changed the outcome of the trial. Those included:

Records about surveillance at the Bundy Ranch.

Maps about government surveillance.

Records about the presence of government snipers.

FBI logs about activity at the ranch in the days leading up to the standoff.

Law-enforcement assessments dating to 2012 that found the Bundys posed no threat.

Internal-affairs reports about misconduct by Bureau of Land Management agents.

MORE ABOUT IT:

Cliven Bundy trial delayed over handling of surveillance cameras

Prosecutors ordered to turn over records about surveillance, armed agents

Prosecutors in their motion seek to minimize the withheld evidence, including the relevance of FBI surveillance cameras and snipers positioned around the Bundy Ranch during the standoff.

"There has never been any dispute that armed federal officers positioned themselves

on public land so they could surveil the Bundy ranch to watch for signs of impending

interference with the operation," prosecutors wrote. "Whether those actions were necessary or reasonable, or whether the surveilling officers could be viewed as snipers, does not justify the defendants’ criminal acts in interfering with the officers’ lawful actions as charged in the indictment."

Prosecutors argued in their motion that the court was wrong to rule that the withheld evidence prevented defendants from mounting a claim of self-defense. "Federal law does not recognize an affirmative defense of 'provocation' or 'intimidation' to any of the charges in the indictment," prosecutors wrote.

"To be sure, federal law does recognize an affirmative defense of self-defense to the

charge of assault on a federal officer," prosecutors wrote, but only when a defendant uses force to resist an attack or when resisting excessive force by a law-enforcement officer.

"This Court concluded that the government violated the defendants’

constitutional rights by failing to disclose information from which they might have been able to develop theories of 'self-defense,' 'provocation,' and 'intimidation,' " prosecutors wrote. "But provocation and intimidation simply are not cognizable defenses."

The motion raises similar issues to those the lead prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Myhre, raised in December, when he urged the judge to allow his office to retry the case.

Navarro, however, rejected his claims and said the evidence could have helped defendants challenge government claims, strengthen their arguments and allowed them to confront government witnesses from the outset of the trial.

Taking up arms against feds

The Bundy Ranch standoff became one of the most high-profile land-use cases in modern Western history. It pitted cattle ranchers, anti-government protesters and militia members against the Bureau of Land Management.

For decades, the BLM ordered Cliven Bundy to remove his cattle from federal lands, and in 2014 the agency obtained a court order to seize his cattle as payment for more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees.

The Bundys launched a social-media rallying cry. Hundreds of supporters, including members of several militia groups, converged on the Bundys' ranch.

Protesters, ranchers and militia members took armed positions around federal law-enforcement officers, with some lying prone on freeway overpasses and sighting down long rifles.

Federal agents abandoned the roundup, saying they were outgunned and in fear for their lives.

The standoff was hailed as a victory by militia members. Ammon and Ryan Bundy later cited their success at Bundy Ranch in the run-up to another protest of BLM policies, the siege of an Oregon wildlife refuge in 2016. An Oregon federal jury acquitted Ammon and Ryan Bundy and five others in October 2016.

The government in 2016 charged 19 people for their roles in the standoff. They were charged with 15 felonies, including conspiracy, obstruction of justice, extortion, using firearms in the commission of crimes, assault and threatening federal officers.

After the initial charges, two of the 19 men took plea deals. Trials for the remaining 17 defendants were broken into three tiers based on their alleged levels of culpability and began in February.

Five more defendants since have taken plea deals.

MORE ABOUT IT: As jury weighs case, Cliven Bundy's wife speaks out

No clear victories

But making a solid case against Bundy and his supporters eluded prosecutors in trials last year.

Two federal juries in Las Vegas rejected conspiracy claims against six defendants. A jury in April deadlocked on charges against four of the first six defendants. It convicted Gregory Burleson of Arizona and Todd Engel of Idaho on weapons and obstruction charges but dismissed all of the conspiracy charges.

A retrial trial ended with the acquittal of two defendants. The jury dismissed most of the charges against the other two defendants and deadlocked on a handful of weapons charges. The two defendants pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and were released with time served.

Cliven Bundy, 71, walked out of a federal courthouse on Jan. 8, free for the first time since his arrest in 2016.

Within minutes of his release, the unrepentant rancher and states' rights activist pledged to continue to defy federal land regulations and continue grazing his cattle on public land without paying fees.

He was greeted by a crush of supporters who offered hugs, placards, cards, tears and cries of "liberty" and "freedom."

READ MORE:

Bundy standoff defendants want Nevada federal prosecutors removed from case

Cliven Bundy walks free as federal judge dismisses Bundy Ranch standoff case