Government misconduct is of paramount relevance…

Attorneys for Tier 3 defendants wasted little time responding to the Government’s motion to suppress evidence. Todd Leventhal, counsel for Scott Drexler, and also on behalf of Eric Parker and Steven Stewart, filed a blistering rebuke of the Government’s attempt to persuade the Court to suppress certain relevant evidence. The defendants promptly oppose government motion and assert that they will nevertheless abide by Federal Rules of Evidence.

The Government abjectly fails to make a plausible case…

Leventhal points out that the Government’s request is far too vague for serious consideration. At no point does the motion specify what should be subject to exclusion. Absent these details, there is no quantifiable way to determine what the Government asserts is inadmissible.

Digging deeper, Leventhal exposes the abject absurdity of the Government’s request. Specifically, the Government wishes to block testimony regarding Cliven Bundy’s dispute with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Leventhal states:

“Indeed, one must wonder how the government would explain their case to the jury without referencing a dispute over cattle.”

The Malheur Refuge case…

Leventhal’s motion exposes obvious hypocrisy. The Government would move to block testimony about the Malheur Refuge Trial, but would, with near certainty, reference Bundy’s ongoing legal dispute. By their own standard, quoted as:

“facts and circumstances, of a prior case and it’s disposition has no relevance to the case at hand” – Gov’t: ECF No. 1390

the Government would not be able to disclose any of Bundy’s prior legal history. The proposition is patently absurd.

“Perceived” Government misconduct…

This is probably the most egregious request of all. Defendants perception of Government misconduct is especially relevant. It is paramount to understanding their state of mind. As a result, it is a key element of their defense.

Appropriately, Leventhal references evidence that delineates how the defendants came to the conclusion that they should travel to Bunkerville in the first place. The answer is: Government misconduct. Consequently, if all evidence related to Government misconduct is inadmissible, there is no way for either side to build a case.

Finally, Leventhal points out that precedent in the 9th Circuit and Supreme Court allow self-defense as an assertion against a charge of assault. All three defendants took defensive postures due to the reasonable threat of grave bodily injury or death to themselves and unarmed protesters.

Defendants promptly oppose government motion…

The Government sought to completely deflate several avenues of defense for Tier 3 defendants. Their attorneys wasted no time in filing a scathing response. From the Malhuer Trial, to the conduct of Federal Agents, to statements made by elected officials… defendants attorneys demonstrate how all of it is not only relevant, but necessary for each defendant to receive a fair trial.

source