By CHERI ROBERTS for Challenging the Rhetoric
It is fairly common knowledge that cellphone, and other electronic device use, is not allowed in federal courtrooms during proceedings. There are a few pilot program courtrooms that do allow it, but neither the Oregon or Nevada courts are one of them. Ammon Bundy’s Oregon attorney, Mike Arnold of Arnold Law Firm, in a podcast interview on Walk the Talk with Nevada Assemblywoman, Michelle Fiore, said he, “didn’t know” he couldn’t use his phone. He was kicked out of the Nevada court during yesterday’s Bunkerville standoff arraignments, after opening his cell phone to allegedly file an “urgent” motion in Oregon on behalf of his clients.
In a Facebook post, Arnold rails,
A marshal told me I could not be on the phone and ordered me to leave. I explained who I was, what I was doing, and why, but it made difference — so I stood up and put on the record to the court that I am Ammon Bundy’s attorney in Oregon, and I’m being told to leave because I was working on a motion for the Oregon case. I asked for it to be put on the record because this type of thing is exactly why we object to the Nevada case proceeding at the same time as the Oregon case.
I cannot be in two places at the same time, and Ammon cannot participate fully in his defense when he is being ping ponged back and forth between the far corners of two vast western states. We’ve been dealt a difficult hand in this case — the deck is stacked against us. I was simply playing the hand I’ve been dealt and the rules changed in the middle of the game.
This begs the question, however, of the legitimacy of this episode. Arnold has participated in many controversial tactics in this case, starting even before he was ever retained by Bundy; including sending two associates to the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, in Burns, Oregon, to “hand deliver” an advertisement for his firm.
Arnold has made multiple public complaints, as well as those to the judge(s) involved in the proceedings, that it was unfair for Ammon, and his co-defendants, to have to travel and fight cases between two states. This is just one of many complaints Arnold has raised thus far.
Let’s take a look at the 6 best case scenarios Ammon Bundy attorney Mike Arnold seems to be banking on, and may be laying the groundwork for …
Criminal cases can be dismissed if it can be proved the defendant’s constitutional rights have been violated; including delays in a defendant’s ability to get a speedy trial. Arnold’s team of citizen sources, supporters of those indicted, are working diligently on this line of defense.
If Arnold can get the case dismissed, the question of the defendant’s guilt never gets tried. This however, leaves open the door, for a new trial, because it would be a dismissal Vs an acquittal; therefor, no double jeopardy involved.
2. False Evidence
Many things fall into the category of false evidence; including fabricated, forged, tainted evidence and witness tampering. False evidence is illegally obtained information meant to sway a verdict in a case. Either side of a case can falsify evidence and it may even come from police or the prosecution in a criminal case; or by someone who is sympathetic to either side.
Attorneys who crowdsource evidence, including witnesses with vested interests, may be more susceptible to receiving tainted evidence. Arnold already silences voices of dissent on his social media, particularly of those proving his crowdsourced evidence as inaccurate. Witness tampering means preventing the testimony of witnesses within criminal or civil proceedings so, although the court of public opinion doesn’t count, his stanching of facts in the lead-up to trial, is worthy of a glance.
3. Change of Venue
When there is widespread publicity about a crime and its co-defendants, many criminal attorneys will try for a change of Venue. This puts distance between a jury trial and the location where it’s been deemed that a fair and impartial jury is not possible.
A change of venue allows attorneys to obtain jurors who may be more objective in their deliberations. High-profile cases, often get so much media attention that a jury can easily have biases based on what they have already seen or heard prior to jury selection. In addition, depending on the location of the crimes committed, and the communities that it involves, a change of venue is sometimes the only way to get a fair jury.
4. Jury Nullification
When a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty”, yet believes the defendant is guilty of the violation charged, it is called, jury nullification. The jury, in effect, nullifies, or cancels, a law that it believes is immoral or wrongly applied.
Supporters of the Malheur co-defendants, along with some of their attorneys, are already talking about this hope. There are also many lawmakers, with interests — whether their own or their constituents, who are actively trying to push and pass laws that could, by default, lessen the public’s opinion of the severity of the crimes, while lending credence to cause that perpetuated them.
A mistrial is the wet dream of most criminal defense attorney’s. Especially if their client(s) is actually guilty or has too much evidence stacked against them. Mistrials occur when there is a provable error in the proceedings.
Arnold’s Nevada cellphone fiasco, and his claim of an unexpected and urgent motion needing to be filed in Oregon, allowed him, once again, to try to razzle dazzle public opinion that the United States government is inept and/or intentionally trying to sabotage his client’s case. Why was his associate, Lissa Casey, who has been on the Bundy case since even before he was, unable to file it on his behalf?
I posed that question to Arnold himself, on his firm’s Facebook wall as a comment in his thread of the Nevada cellphone situation. My polite question was promptly removed, and no response was given. Others, who have asked the him the same question, have also had their comments removed.
6. Throwing the Case
All good attorneys like to win their cases, but sometimes, the notoriety of a case alone, is enough to establish a more prominent reputation in the legal community and the public. If Arnold can sway public opinion, enough, whether he wins or loses, is of no overall consequence to him on the grander scale.
Having Bundy as a client has brought more media attention to Arnold than all of his previous cases combined.
Whatever his strategy, it seems to be working against him and his client, nor for them.
Thank you! If you like this or other Challenging the Rhetoric articles, please share. Don’t forget to follow the website, Facebook page and/or@CTRNewsFeed on Twitter and of course listen to the LIVE show every Weds. @ 6pmPST/9pmEST. You can also pick one from the archives or on YouTube. If you would like to make a PayPal donationin support of the show, it is appreciated.
Checkout these other recent articles by Cheri Roberts …
- Letters to David Fry, Oregon Standoff’s “Last Man Out” – #1
- Orange Hat Man, Kenny Rhoades, Claims Santilli Went to Psych Ward and Told Patients they were “Targeted Individuals”
- Was Pete Santilli Everybody’s Perfect Patsy?
- What Evidence Did the Feds Retrieve from Pete Santilli and Deb Jordan’s Enterprise Rental Car?
- Why is ATF Surveilling Phoenix, Arizona Strip Mall Location of United Nation Ammo Company Blocks Away From Home of Bundy Ranch Indictee, Gregory Burleson
- Deschutes County Sheriff Releases Ryan Bundy Cell Phone Video
- Bundy Attorney Uses Embattled Infringement Platform Snip.ly to Drum Up Donors for Bundy Defense
- When Your Source is the Crowd, Does the Crowd You Source Matter?
- YouTuber Dallas Ahrens says Pete Santilli Influenced Him to Go to Malheur, Read Constitution
- Washington National Guard’s Militia Moe tells ACLJ to Get Off Their Asses