That jury appears to be a real brain trust.
It escapes me how they cannot all be found guilty. How much evidence is required? More hours of video, statements to the press, self-admissions, etc.?
Marcus Mumford? From Mumford & Sons? An attorney defending a RWNJ scumbag? Say it ain’t so…
I hope they don’t have to go in, after the verdict, and clean up piles of shit in the corners of the room —
This should never ever have happened in the first place, and the defense attorney is cleaning his pants right now that he was able to get the juror removed. No, it’s not a “brilliant strategy” to allow a juror to be impaneled who shouldn’t be just so later you can shout “mistrial” at the end. It’s stupid, it’s malpractice and had the admission of bias not been made and this went through as a conviction, he could’ve been on the hook if word leaked out later. There’s a voire dire for a reason and it’s amazing that this idiot attorney missed asking the question of whether jurors had served the BLM or other similar/related governmental entities. We ask it every single damn time in our eminent domain cases whether people worked for taking authorities, etc.
Bundy’s lawyer probably thought BLM stood for “Black Lives Matter” and was therefore irrelevant to the case.
Someone asked because the judge decided early on, after assurances by the person in question, that he wasn’t biased and could fulfill his duties.
So, this tells me, if this guy was still on the jury, three convictions.
Is there no such thing as a directed verdict in a criminal case? Precisely what issues are the jury deliberating?
His previous work for the BLM came up in voir dire, he said it was 20 years ago and has no real affiliation w/the BLM and so it wouldn’t prejudice him. Defense thought this was fine (at the time). He was a firefighter for the BLM, defense probably figured he checked enough of their boxes (male, rural, blue collar) that he’d be in their favor despite once taking seasonal BLM employment.
Following this case, I sincerely doubt Mumford or any of the defense council has the ability to play such a long term strategy as to sit a juror they could establish an appeal on. To the contrary, it seems Mumford has been doing a great job establishing an appeal based on insufficient council for his client (Ammon).
Plus, I believe the Mumford & Sons Marcus is British.
So, I’ll say it ain’t so…
Probably not from Mumford & Sons…
But as to your seeming suggesting that an attorney should not be representing a RWNJ, I take issue with that. If our Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights, stands for anything it is that EVERYONE is entitled to equality before the law, which means an accused is entitled to a lawyer, even entitled to a competent lawyer, and is innocent until proven guilty.
It makes me cringe when I hear people trying to smear Hillary Clinton by suggesting that she was somehow morally corrupt because she defended someone accused of raping a child. Remember, John Adams defended one of the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre in the 1770s.
A fair point, I would not mean to suggest that anyone shouldn’t be represented by counsel, just not by an English folk-rock band singer…
That made me laugh… 
Yes and no. A judge can direct a verdict of not guilty, but not a verdict of guilty.
Directed verdicts in civil cases tend to suck, anyway. Much better to grant a judgment NOV*, so if you get reversed on appeal (depending on the grounds, of course) the verdict could be reinstated instead of holding a whole new trial. Of course, there are exceptions to that, but I stand by it as a general rule.
.
.
*Non obstante veredicto; it’s an overruling of the verdict as a matter of law.
Caesar’s wife situation. Better to err on the side of caution.
Is this attorney a Public Defender?
I thought the same thing initially, but it appears from the article the attorney did ask these questions on voir dire, and the guy said his former employment at BLM would not prejudice his views. So either he became biased during the course of trial (which is a real possibility given what we know about these defendants from news reports) or the juror who reported him is mistaken, misheard or lying about what the juror said at the outset of deliberations.
Mumford is a private attorney. Most have private attorneys or are pro se (acting as own attorney, although some of those have public defenders acting as “hybrid council”).
For those interested in the trial, a verdict is in. A curated twitter feed of reporters covering it can be found at https://twitter.com/jjmacnab/lists/bundy-oregon-trials
Jury sent note saying they agreed on all but one count, Judge decided to go forward as-is. This was at 3. Don’t know if the twitter silence is because people are in the courtroom (and therefore can’t tweet) or some other delay.