Ammon Bundy’s lawyers have filed a motion for a mistrial, claiming Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward offered prejudicial testimony in court this week that the judge failed to address sufficiently.
Bundy’s lawyer Marcus Mumford had asked Ward during his cross-examination Wednesday if he had conducted his own investigation into the 2014 armed standoff that occurred near Bunkerville, Nevada with federal officers attempting to corral Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s ranch cattle. Cliven Bundy is Ammon Bundy’s father.
Ward explained that what he learned about the Nevada standoff “scared the hell” out of him. The sheriff went on to note that he had discovered during a Google search on the Internet that “some unstable people who had left that situation” killed two police officers while they were eating lunch in a restaurant.
In court, Mumford asked the judge to strike Ward’s comments, arguing they were unresponsive. The judge denied his motion.
Bundy’s older brother, Ryan Bundy, then stood up and objected, also asking the court to strike Ward’s statements, initially citing a hearsay objection but quickly contending instead that the comments were prejudicial.
They were prejudicial because they were “about the folks supposedly killing people that were not associated with us,” Ryan Bundy argued in court.
Ward did not describe the shooting further in court. His remarks, though, were about a man and a woman accused of ambushing and fatally shooting two police officers at a Las Vegas restaurant in June 2014. According to news reports, neighbors had said the couple, who later died in a murder-suicide, had previously boasted about spending time at Cliven Bundy’s ranch and had talked about being in Bunkerville during the April 2014 standoff.
U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown found merit in Ryan Bundy’s objection, and told jurors to disregard Ward’s references to events in Bunkerville that had to do with police officers being killed.
Now, Mumford argues that the judge’s instructions to jurors didn’t go far enough.
“While the Court offered a curative explanation to the jury, that instruction was inadequate in light of the highly inflammatory and prejudicial insinuations that Mr. Bundy’s actions are somehow related to a high-profile, double-murder of police officers,” Mumford wrote in his motion. “Accordingly, Mr. Bundy moves for a mistrial and dismissal with prejudice.”
If the court isn’t inclined to grant a mistrial, Mumford offered the judge three alternatives: strike all of the sheriff’s testimony, hold an evidentiary hearing to inquire further about what Ward learned from other law enforcement about the Bunkerville standoff, or tell the jury Ward’s statement was unfounded and intended to prejudice his client.
“Sheriff Ward is a governmental agent and a central governmental witness who was clearly aware of the prejudice he was unfairly creating with his testimony, which he intentionally directed at Mr. Bundy and his counsel, as indicated by his indignant use of the word “sir,” in the answer at issue,” Mumford wrote.
Ward ended most of his responses to Mumford’s questions by addressing him “sir,” during his cross-examination.
Ammon Bundy and six co-defendants have pleaded not guilty to conspiring to impede federal employees of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge from doing their jobs through intimidation, threats or force. Opening statements began Tuesday and Ward was called by the government as its first witness on Wednesday.
The judge said in court Thursday that Mumford had filed a motion for a mistrial and indicated she would address it Friday. The motion was not publicly filed in the U.S. District Court in Portland.
The judge noted on the case docket that she had sealed a motion Thursday, but Mumford’s mistrial motion circulated on social media regardless. The motion found on social media contained the proper date, court markings and docket number corresponding with the motion the judge had sealed, Document 1280.
