Judge dismisses case against Cliven Bundy and family with prejudice.

The Bundy family and supporters during the protest. LA Times/AP

A Nevada Judge has dismissed the cases against Cliven Bundy and his family with prejudice citing the prosecutors failing to disclose evidence. LA Times. The violation of the Brady Rule caused the judge to declare a mistrial and now means that Bundy and his family cannot be tried again for the standoff four years ago. Juries have also recently acquitted or deadlocked on other members of the Bundy clan. The standoff was in opposition to federal land usage policy. 

My Comment:

Sounds like the prosecutors screwed up and screwed up badly. The Brady Rule is pretty basic stuff and withholding exculpatory evidence is a huge no-no. The fact that they did so means that they probably thought they were going to lose anyways. You don't withhold evidence when your case is strong. It's also possible that the prosecutor just didn't like the defendants in this case and that could have motivated their behavior as well. 

There was a real risk of jury nullification in this case. That indeed may have been what happened with the cases with Bundy's sons. All it takes is one sympathetic juror and that means a mistrial. Given the relative popularity of the Bundys and the unpopularity of the Federal Government's policy in the West that is a big risk. That might explain why they did what they did when they withheld evidence. 

I have to say that I always was conflicted about the Bundy's actions. On the one hand their cause was totally justified. Their grievances against the federal government are real and are great examples of the Federal Government pushing the little guy around. There was no reason for the Obama Administration to push such harsh land use rules on Nevada and other Western states. 

On the other hand, I am opposed to protest in principle. I have never liked protesters even when they are in favor of a cause I agree with. Though the Bundy's probably exhausted their legal remedies and had little other option, I still dislike protest. I am pretty clearly on the conservative side of the spectrum but I also come down pretty hard on the side of civil order. I won't ever be comfortable with a protest movement. 

Still, I don't like the way the Federal Government acted against the Bundys. The only good thing is that Obama didn't turn Bundy Ranch into Waco 2.0 or, even worse, Fort Sumter... They also caused unnecessary bloodshed in the Oregon standoff where they ambushed Cliven's son and ended up in a shoot out with LaVoy Finicum that ended up with him dying. And the large law enforcement response to the original protest was a major case of overkill. 

I have to say the most disgusting thing is how Cliven Bundy was taken down by the media. A reporter was sent in and asked him a bunch of questions that had nothing to do with the protest. One of those questions was about race and a lot of people didn't like the answer he had even though what he said sounds like it would have been normal coming from a black lives matter protester. Bundy was painted as a racist and it cost him a lot of support. 

I have to wonder if this is the last we will hear of Bundy and his family. If I were them I would probably stay away from politics for quite some time. Considering the cost of their trials and legal problems they would do well to not make waves. They also don't need to pick another fight with the Federal Government as the next time they might not win. 

On the other hand they are pretty obviously true believers. I think that if they get mad at the Federal Government again they could start a protest. I don't think it matters that we have a new president. I haven't seen any evidence that Trump has changed course on the issue and we probably won't know what he will do until something happens. My guess is that the Bundys probably like Trump a lot more than Obama but that doesn't mean much...