Jury refuses to convict in Bundy ranch standoff

[2A_Tom]

Department Of Education: Raid Of California Man’s Home Was Not Related To Defaulted Student Loans
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011...tion-raid-default-student-loans_n_873272.html

Raw Milk Raid on Amish Farmer Highlights Stupid FDA Tactics

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Were the feds think they were in a crazy contest?

When .gov acts like this it makes the Nuttertarians look reasonable.

 

[HoughMade]

...When .gov acts like this it makes the Nuttertarians look reasonable.

hyperbole alert

 

[Kirk Freeman]

hyperbole alert

I follow the Rule of Reasonable Hyperbole.

 

[T.Lex]

Probably not what millenials think when they hear "nutter butter."

 

[Coach]

Slight tangent: Legal question. I am late to the party and just read the article. The defense witnesses were constrained and restricted on what they could say and testify to during the defense examination of the witness? Then the judge strikes ones testimony because he did not stay in the confines of what she said he could talk about? Am I reading that right? Is this normal procedure?

 

[T.Lex]

Slight tangent: Legal question. I am late to the party and just read the article. The defense witnesses were constrained and restricted on what they could say and testify to during the defense examination of the witness? Then the judge strikes ones testimony because he did not stay in the confines of what she said he could talk about? Am I reading that right? Is this normal procedure?

In a complicated case, it is "normal" for witnesses - and lawyers - to have boundaries as to what is relevant/prejudicial. The mechanism would be familiar to any practitioner, including how to instruct witnesses into avoiding the problematic areas. And explaining what can happen if the boundaries are crossed.

Whether the constraints were appropriate, whether the witness strayed across the boundaries, and whether the penalty was appropriate can be part of the appeals process.

For cases that are straightforward, it isn't necessary.

So, it isn't "normal" in the sense of happening in a large number of cases. But it is "normal" in the sense of being familiar to lawyers and sophisticated parties.

 

[Fargo]

Slight tangent: Legal question. I am late to the party and just read the article. The defense witnesses were constrained and restricted on what they could say and testify to during the defense examination of the witness? Then the judge strikes ones testimony because he did not stay in the confines of what she said he could talk about? Am I reading that right? Is this normal procedure?

Witnesses on both sides are limited to testimonial evidence admissible under the Rules of Evidence. Both sides will file what are known as motions in limine before a trial asking the judge to rule on the admissibility of potential testimony/evidence. If a judge makes such a ruling, a witness will be instructed as to what has been ruled admissible or inadmissible. If they violate that order, the inadmissible testimony will be ordered struck.

For example, in a trial for shoplifting, a state's witness cannot testify that the defendant is a bad person because it is known that he beats his dog. It isn't relevant, it is an attempt to prove bad character rather than the crime, and it is likely hearsay.

Conversely, a the defense cannot present testimony that it was fine for the defendant to hit a cop because the cop is a known homosexual.

Those are extreme examples, but you get my drift.

 

[HoughMade]

There are rules of evidence as to what it admissible.

It is 100% normal for witnesses to be limited to what is legally admissible.

I just got done filing a bunch of motions to limit evidence to what is admissible and reading motions from other parties to the same effect.

 

[indiucky]

When .gov acts like this it makes the Nuttertarians look reasonable.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I MEANT MOST NUTTERTARIANS! MOST!

Not that loon.

 

[Coach]

In a complicated case, it is "normal" for witnesses - and lawyers - to have boundaries as to what is relevant/prejudicial. The mechanism would be familiar to any practitioner, including how to instruct witnesses into avoiding the problematic areas. And explaining what can happen if the boundaries are crossed.

Whether the constraints were appropriate, whether the witness strayed across the boundaries, and whether the penalty was appropriate can be part of the appeals process.

For cases that are straightforward, it isn't necessary.

So, it isn't "normal" in the sense of happening in a large number of cases. But it is "normal" in the sense of being familiar to lawyers and sophisticated parties.

Thanks to you and the others for answering. It helps quite a bit.

We have no idea in this case what the parameters were. So my mind is now wondering around. The named case would not be "straight forward" because of so many element being involved like public land, private use, threat of force, resisting LE, people coming into the area from other states and such?

 

[BugI02]

It helps me to picture Feds as being like Special Agent Johnson in Die Hard, you know the guy that wants the power shut off to Nakatomi Tower. When asked about authorization he says "Authorization? How about the United States ****ING government? Lose the grid, or you lose your job."

Like most generalizations, there is likely a grain of truth in it because the caricature is so wide spread