Twenty seven armed individuals entered federal land earlier this year in Oregon, holding government officials and law enforcers at bay for several weeks. One of them was shot and killed at a roadblock during the prolonged standoff.
The antigovernment protestors were angered by what they said was the continuing seizure of land by federal agencies, which they subsequently argued in court as defendants operated as a long-term constitutional violation.
As reported in a recent Washington Post article chronicling the case and its material developments, few people expected anything other than an adverse outcome for the individuals on trial.
“You don’t walk into a federal court and win a case like this,” said one commentator close to the matter.
And yet that is exactly what the defendants did, with the 12-panel jury unanimously acquitting them on all criminal charges, including the core allegation that they conspired to commit unlawful acts and to impede government law enforcers.
What turned the case, said one juror speaking anonymously after trial, was the prosecution’s subpar performance, marked centrally by an arrogant attitude and overly casual approach to meeting its duty in proving the alleged charges.
That juror stated that, notwithstanding the panel’s disinclination to be impressed by the defendants’ stated motives and beliefs, the acquittal was flatly necessitated by “various failures of the prosecution” to meet its proof-related duties. Among other things, he noted, jury members were put off by prosecutors’ insistence that they simply infer conspiracy in the matter.
They didn’t, with the result being what the Post terms a “stunning” outcome in the case.
The matter certainly has relevance in cases across the country, including criminal law matters in Indiana. Government lawyers must prove their cases, with knowledgeable and aggressive criminal defense attorneys seeking to ensure that they do so on every material point at trial.