Bundy Brothers Acquitted

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2016, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: They argued that the presence of paid government informants at the refuge during the occupation muddied the waters and created reasonable doubt about how the decisions of the defendants were made.



This fact is what most likely swayed the jury.

Juror 4 states that the jurors all agree that the occupation intimidated federal employees and prevented them from working, but the prosecution did not prove intent to do so. They were not sure if the group's intent was to come together to prevent the employees from working and the prosecution made no attempt to prove it. He suggests the prosecution was too cocky and even implies the jurors thought criminal trespassing were more appropriate charges.

"Don't they know that 'not guilty' does not mean innocent?'' he wrote. "It was not lost on us that our verdict(s) might inspire future actions that are regrettable, but that sort of thinking was not permitted when considering the charges before us.''



http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/10/juror_4_prosecutors_in_oregon.html

cliffnotes: Jurors say they did impede and intimidate,  but they don't know if that was their intent.