IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMMON BUNDY, et al,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR
MOTION TO DISMISS JUROR FOR BIAS
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR
MISTRIAL
District Judge Anna J. Brown
Yesterday, the Court received from the jury a note asking: “CAN A JUROR, A
FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, WHO OPENS
THEIR REMARKS IN DELIBERATIONS BY STATING, ‘I AM VERY BIASED …’ BE
CONSIDERED AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE IN THIS CASE?” After conferring with the parties,
the Court inquired of the foreperson (Juror #1), who identified Juror #4 as the note’s author,
attributing the statement to Juror #11. The Court conducted a limited inquiry of Juror #11 but
refused to ask whether he made an admission of bias as Juror #4 alleged. Based on its limited
inquiry, the Court found no basis to dismiss Juror #11 and declined Defendants’ request for any
further investigation. The Court, however, invited further briefing on the matter.
Based on the authority that follows, Defendant Ammon Bundy moves the Court (1) to
dismiss Juror #11 from any further deliberations, (2) to replace Juror #11 with one of the
remaining alternate jurors with an instruction to the jury to begin its deliberation anew, Fed. R.
Crim. P. 24(c)(3), or (3) in the alternative, to declare a mistrial.
