Robert Anglen, The Republic | azcentral.com Published Aug. 15, 2017
Defendants waived closing arguments Tuesday in the Bundy Ranch standoff trial in Las Vegas, ending a monthlong legal battle with a clear protest about court proceedings.
Lawyers for the four men charged in the 2014 clash among federal agents, militia members and cattle ranchers took the unusual step of resting their cases without a final address to the jury.
“The message is simple,” Las Vegas lawyer Shawn Perez said Tuesday afternoon. “You silenced us the entire trial … there’s nothing more to say.”
The move was part of a strategy to deprive federal prosecutors of an opportunity to make rebuttal arguments and to end the case while it was in the hands of the defense, said Perez, who represents defendant Richard Lovelien of Oklahoma.
Jurors began deliberations Tuesday afternoon.
Just after 3 p.m. Tuesday, defendants were called to make closing arguments, when lawyers typically seek to drive home critical points in the case in a last effort to sway jurors. One after the other, defense lawyers stood and recited the same words: “We have no closing at this time.”
“I think it was effective,” Perez said. “We all decided last night we were going to waive arguments. Otherwise the government was going to come back on rebuttal and embellish stuff and our hands would be tied.”
The defense move followed hours of arguments by federal prosecutors, who systematically laid out their case against defendants for their parts in a conspiracy to help Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy prevent federal agents from rounding up his cattle.
Prosecutors singled out defendants in an attempt to show how each was involved in a coordinated, armed effort, each with an individual role to force federal agents to back down.
Prosecutors said some defendants acted as spotters while another served as the equivalent of a getaway driver in a bank robbery.
Defense lawyers offered no explanation in court for their decision to waive closing arguments. But after court ended Tuesday, Perez said the judge made it virtually impossible for defendants to offer any substantive arguments: They were prohibited by rulings from telling jurors why defendants joined the protest at the Bundy Ranch; they couldn’t argue about the legality of carrying weapons or mentioning Nevada’s open-carry firearms laws; they couldn’t say joining a militia was legal.
Defense lawyers have complained throughout the trial that rulings by U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro have prevented them from mounting a legitimate defense and that defendants have been improperly denied a fair trial.
Events came to a head Thursday when Navarro abruptly ended court by ordering defendant Eric Parker off the stand and striking his testimony from the record as jurors watched.
Even after the case went to the jury Tuesday, controversy continued to erupt. Perez said shortly after being dismissed, lawyers were called back into court, where Navarro raised concerns about potential misconduct by a juror.
The judge told lawyers the juror might have made a gesture of support to one of the defendants. Perez said the juror explained under questioning she was saying goodbye to an alternate juror since they likely would not see one another again.
Navarro did not dismiss the juror.
