Navarro: Jury Cannot Use Constitution – Bunkerville Trial
By Loren Edward Pearce
IMAGINE A BASKETBALL REFEREE ASKING FOR GUIDANCE FROM THE COACH OF HER FAVORITE TEAM DURING A CONTEST.
Court watch, Tuesday, April 4
That is what we have with Gloria Navarro in her interaction with the fed prosecution team. What we really have is a judge who is solidly in support of her team mates, the federal prosecutors.
At 10:11 am, on April 4 during arguments over jury instructions, Navarro looked at the prosecution team and said, “I am not sure what to do” then she said she would go back to the issue later. Repeatedly, throughout the hearing, the judge would look to the prosecutors for guidance and then would say, “I agree”.
The defense was repeatedly denied their motions and requests until the suggestion was made for a jury instruction to change the wording from “victim” to “alleged victim” so as to not give the jury the impression that the victim was a certain fact. Adding the word alleged created the impression that there was still doubt as to who was the victim.
Like throwing a bone with no meat to a dog, the judge reluctantly agreed to change the language to “alleged victim”. A short time later, the judge took the meatless bone away from the dog, and said, “I am reversing myself, I am not going to modify the language to alleged but will leave it as it is.” This tiny concession to the defense was too much for the judge and prosecution and it was taken back.
The defense repeatedly said that it was for the jury to determine if and when the 1st and 2nd amendment would apply in determining their relationship to the intent and actions of the defendants. The prosecution would have opportunity to show the jury why the defense argument was not correct and then let the jury decide.
Navarro said, and I am a witness, jury nullification must be prohibited and no jury instruction should include any mention of the 1st and 2nd amendment. She went on to say that bringing any mention of the 1st and 2nd amendment to the jury would not be helpful and would confuse them. Should there be any violations of the 1st and 2nd amendment or other constitutional questions, that it could be appealed and it was for the appellate court to decide, not the jury. Of course, that is an outrageous statement, starting with the fact that constitutional questions are for the jury to decide as facts may relate to it and appeals means long prison time for the defendants as they await an appellate decision.
One issue that jumped out at me was Navarro’s denial of a jury instruction that would show that Nevada is an open carry state and as such, many of the defendants thought it was perfectly legal to carry weapons while at the protest. The prosecution objected, and the judge agreed, that federal law trumps state law and as such, the Nevada open carry had no relevancy and the jury didn’t need to be confused by that.
Eric Parker asked to testify on his own behalf. When asked by the judge why he wanted to testify on his own behalf and if he understood the risks he was taking, Eric said, “I feel obligated to testify because the court has taken away our other witnesses, not allowing them to testify, so I am compelled to testify as one of the only remaining witnesses the court will allow”.
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, TO BRING THESE ATROCITIES TO THEIR ATTENTION. WHILE IT MAY SEEM LIKE SPITTING IN THE OCEAN, IF ENOUGH PEOPLE SPIT ENOUGH TIMES, IT WILL GET THEIR ATTENTION.
From Redoubt News
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.