U.S. v. BUNDY

Case No. 2:16-cr-046-GMN-PAL.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLIVEN D. BUNDY, RYAN C. BUNDY, AMMON E. BUNDY, RYAN W. PAYNE, and PETER T. SANTILLI, JR. Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Cliven D. Bundy, Defendant, represented by Joel F. Hansen , Cooper Levenson, P.A. & Bret O. Whipple , Law Office of Bret Whipple.

Ryan C. Bundy, Defendant, Pro Se.

Ryan C. Bundy, Defendant, represented by Angela H. Dows , Premier Legal Group.

Ammon E. Bundy, Defendant, represented by Daniel Hill , Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro & Schulman & Jay Morgan Philpot .

Ryan W. Payne, Defendant, represented by Brenda Weksler , Federal Public Defender, Ryan Norwood , Federal Public Defenders, Shari L. Kaufman , Federal Public Defender, William C. Carrico , Federal Public Defender, Cristen Thayer & Cullen Macbeth .

Peter T. Santilli, Jr., Defendant, represented by Chris T. Rasmussen , Rasmussen & Kang LLC..

Melvin D. Bundy, Defendant, represented by Lucas Gaffney , Oronoz, Ericsson & Gaffney LLC.

David H. Bundy, Defendant, represented by Cal J. Potter, III , Potter Law Offices.

Brian D. Cavalier, Defendant, represented by Mace J. Yampolsky , Mace Yampolsky, LTD.

Blaine Cooper, Defendant, represented by Dennis Matthew Lay , Nguyen & Lay.

Gerald A. Delemus, Defendant, represented by Dustin R. Marcello , Osvaldo E. Fumo, Chtd.

Eric J. Parker, Defendant, represented by Jess R. Marchese , Law Office of Jess R. Marchese.

O. Scott Drexler, Defendant, represented by Todd M. Leventhal , Leventhal and Associates.

Richard R. Lovelien, Defendant, represented by Shawn R. Perez , Law Office Of Shawn R. Perez.

Steven A. Stewart, Defendant, represented by Richard E. Tanasi .

Todd C. Engel, Defendant, represented by John G. George , John George.

Gregory P. Burleson, Defendant, represented by Terrence M. Jackson , Law Office of Terrence M. Jackson.

Joseph D. O'Shaughnessy, Defendant, represented by Andrea Lee Luem , Law Offices of Andrea L Luem.

Micah L. McGuire, Defendant, represented by Randall J. Roske , Law Office of Randall J. Roske.

Jason D. Woods, Defendant, represented by Kristine M. Kuzemka , Kuzemka Law Group.

Russell M. Aoki, Interested Party, Pro se.

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Intervenor, represented by Alina M. Shell , McLetchie Shell LLC & Margaret A. McLetchie , McLetchie Shell LLC.

Battle Born Media, Intervenor, represented by Alina M. Shell , McLetchie Shell LLC & Margaret A. McLetchie , McLetchie Shell LLC.

Associated Press, Intervenor, represented by Alina M. Shell , McLetchie Shell LLC & Margaret A. McLetchie , McLetchie Shell LLC.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Erin M. Creegan , United States Attorney District of Nevada, Nadia Janjua Ahmed , U.S. Attorney's Office, Nicholas D. Dickinson , US Attorneys Office, Roger W. Wenthe , U.S. Attorney's Office, Steven W. Myhre , U.S. Attorney's Office & Peter S. Levitt , U.S. Attorney.


ORDER

GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Government's Motion for an Order Setting a Definite Date to Commence the Second Trial. (ECF No. 1837). Defendant Peter T. Santilli, Jr. ("Santilli") filed a Motion for Joinder (ECF No. 1840), and Defendant Ryan W. Payne ("Payne") filed a Response (ECF No. 1844).

On March 2, 2016, a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Nevada returned a Superseding Indictment charging nineteen defendants with sixteen counts related to a confrontation with Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") Officers in Bunkerville, Nevada, on April 12, 2014. (ECF No. 27).

On December 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen entered an Order (ECF No. 1098) severing the nineteen defendants in this case into three tiers and informing the parties that the commencement of each trial will begin 30 days after the conclusion of the previous trial. As of the date of this order, the jury for the Tier 3 defendants continues deliberations for the first trial. The Government requests that the Court set a definite trial date on, or after, June 5, 2017. (Gov't Mot., ECF No. 1837). Both Santilli and Payne agree "that having a definite date set for trial advances [their] interest" and they do not "oppose the date proposed by the Government." (Payne Resp. 3:6-7, ECF No. 1844); (see also Santilli Mot. Joinder 2:2-6, ECF No. 1840).

The Court finds it is appropriate to set a definite trial date for the Tier 1 defendants in the second trial in this case. First, the parties need to prepare subpoenas and schedule their witnesses. (See Gov't Mot. 3:4-9); (see also Santilli Mot. Joinder 2:5-6). Additionally, as the Government explains in its Motion, it "will need time to comply with its ongoing disclosure obligations under Rule 16." (Gov't Mot. 3:10-11). As such, the Court now sets a definite trial date for the second trial of June 26, 2017.

The Sixth Amendment states in pertinent part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." U.S. Const. amend VI. Additionally, the Speedy Trial Act dictates that trial "shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). However, the Speedy Trial Act also provides for several enumerated circumstances in which time is excluded from the seventy-day deadline. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h); Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 497 (2006) ("[T]he [Speedy Trial] Act recognizes that criminal cases vary widely and that there are valid reasons for greater delay in particular cases. To provide the necessary flexibility, the Act includes a long and detailed list of periods of delay that are excluded in computing the time within which trial must start."). For these exclusions, the court must find that "the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In the Ninth Circuit, "in order to comply with the Speedy Trial Act the district court must satisfy two requirements whenever it grants an `ends of justice' continuance: (1) the continuance must be specifically limited in time; and (2) it must be justified on the record with reference to the facts as of the time the delay is ordered." United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263, 1268 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotations omitted).

Here, for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, the Court previously excluded 30 days between the first and second trial. (Order Excluding Time, ECF No. 1712). The Court now finds it appropriate to exclude approximately1 35 additional days. The excluded time is "specifically limited" because the Court is setting a specific date for the start of trial, June 26, 2017. As explained in previous orders (see, e.g., id. 5:16-6:3), the Court finds that this additional excluded time is necessary and reasonable due to the complexity of the case and outstanding motions that must be addressed prior to the start of the second trial. Therefore, the Court finds that "the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Government's Motion for an Order Setting a Definite Date to Commence the Second Trial (ECF No. 1837) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court GRANTS the request for a definite trial date. Trial in this matter will begin on Monday, June 26, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro in Courtroom 7C. Calendar Call will be held on Thursday, May 25, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro in Courtroom 7C.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Peter T. Santilli, Jr.'s Motion for Joinder (ECF No. 1840) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court finds this continuation is necessary and excusable under the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, § 3161(h)(7)(A).

FootNotes


1. The number of days is an approximation because there is no verdict in the first trial yet, so it is unclear when the original 30-day exclusion of time will begin.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases