Media outlets turn to L&C law professors to explain events of Oregon militia standoff trial
October 31, 2016
(Rick Bowmer/Associated Press)
Professors Tung Yin, Mike Blumm, and Susan Mandiberg have been very busy the past few weeks as several media outlets have turned to them to explain the case against the seven members of an armed militia that occupied the Malheur County Wildlife Refuge in rural Oregon in January. The defendants, who occupied the land for 41 days before being arrested, were facing weapons charges and conspiracy to intimidate federal workers. In a stunning and unexpected outcome, a jury acquitted all defendants, leaving many people shocked and questioning what went wrong for the prosecution.
Professor Yin, who admittedly felt the prosecution had a “slam dunk” case, speaks with several reporters to try to flush out the reasons the jury acquitted and what that might look like for upcoming related trials, including those of Aamon and Ryan Bundy, the brothers who led the occupation. Professor Blumm says there is “no basis” for the group’s constitutional arguments about public lands, and that there’s a concern the result of the trial will fuel a political movement.
For those following the case, or wanting to learn more, the following news items may provide some insight.
The Washington Times - Prosecutors blamed for bungling Bundy case by forcing conspiracy charge
The Daily Beast - Oregon Verdict Gives Anti-Government Movement Hope
The Register Guard - Verdict in refuge occupation trial elicits wide disbelief
Washington Post - Those who took plea deals in Oregon standoff weigh options
KGW News - Law professor weighs in on Bundy not-guilty verdict
Fox 12 Oregon - Local leaders, law experts share thoughts on standoff verdict
Southern California Public Radio - In light of surprise Malheur Refuge verdict, a look at the history of jury nullification