How the Oregon militia acquittals reflect the appeal of white nationalist agitators
The verdicts mark for the third time in 28 years that a high-profile federal case has raised the question – do far-right anti-government radicals evoke sympathies among jurors that other defendants do not?
Andrew Gumbel
Saturday 29 October 2016 10.52 EDT
Conventional wisdom has it that defendants never catch a break in US federal court: the conviction rate last year was more than 95%. But it seems those odds improve if, like the leaders of last winter’s armed standoff at the Malheur national wildlife refuge in Oregon, you are part of the radical anti-government right.
The decision by a Portland jury to acquit the Bundy brothers, Ammon and Ryan, and five others on conspiracy and firearms charges on Thursday night marks the third time in 28 years that a high-profile federal case involving armed anti-government agitators has collapsed.
In each case, questions have arisen over whether white nationalist agitators evoked sympathies among jurors that other defendants do not.
Four years ago, an attempt to charge members of the Hutaree Christian militia in Michigan with sedition ended in similar embarrassment for the government after the judge said there was no evidence the five defendants intended to attack anyone, much less murder a police officer and ambush his funeral as the prosecution alleged.
More:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/29/oregon-militia-bundys-acquittals-anti-government-right-influence
= new reply since forum marked as read
