Matthew G. McHenry, OSB 04357

Levine & McHenry LLC

1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1414

Portland, Oregon 97204

503-546-3927

email: matthew@levinemchenry.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

SEAN ANDERSON, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-12

DECLARATION OF COUNSEL IN 

SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

DECLARATION OF MATTHEW MCHENRY

I, Matthew McHenry, hereby depose and state that to the best of my 

knowledge and belief the following is true and correct:

1. I am the attorney of record in the above-captioned case, having 

been appointed under the Criminal Justice Act on February 11, 2016. 

2. Mr. Anderson is charged in a superseding indictment dated March 

8, 2016, with Conspiracy to Impede Officers of the United States (Count 1), 

Possession of Firearms and Dangerous Weapons in a Federal Facility (Count 

2), Using or Carrying a Firearm in a Crime of Violence (Count 3), and 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 605 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 5
2

Depredation of Government Property (Count 6). There are 26 co-defendants 

in the case.

3. Mr. Anderson was one of the last four individuals to leave the 

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge after the 41-day event. 

4. Trial is currently scheduled for September 7, 2016.

5. The Court has declared the case complex for purposes of the 

Speedy Trial Act, and has indicated that the “compressed timeline” currently 

set for the case was “in large part at Ammon Bundy’s insistence.” Dkt. No. 

455. Mr. Anderson is not insisting on a compressed timeline, and has in fact 

filed a waiver of his Speedy Trial rights. Dkt. No. 602.

6. Mr. Anderson is out of custody and living with his wife and codefendant, Sandra Lynn Anderson, in Riggins, Idaho. Mr. Anderson 

understands the need for adequate preparation and as such consents to the

continuance of his trial as requested in the accompanying motion. 

7. On behalf of Mr. Anderson, I request a continuance or severance of 

the current “compressed timeframe” trial on the ground that given the 

incredible complexity of this case, including the number of defendants, the 

volume and types of discovery, and the extensive investigation required, 

among other things, I do not believe we can be adequately prepared for a 

trial by September 7, 2016.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 605 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 5
3

8. The government continues to provide discovery to the CJA office 

for dissemination to defendants. Thus far, significant portions of the 

discovery are still unavailable for review. Given the complexity and volume 

of discovery, our organization, review and analysis would take an extensive 

amount of time under the best of circumstances. The circumstances of this 

case have created significant delay in the discovery phase and have 

complicated our review of discovery considerably. 

9. In addition, in my experience, cases with substantial discovery like 

this case typically give rise to a number of discovery disputes and attendant 

litigation. Discovery disputes arise, however, only after the government has 

completed its initial production and defense counsel has had a chance to 

review and process the discovery. Given the discovery production and 

processing delays, and that the government is continuing to produce 

discovery, the compressed timeframe of this case will push any such 

litigation very close to the current trial date or may require resolution during 

the trial. As such, adequate preparation for trial will be impossible.

10. Much of my investigation stems from review and analysis of 

discovery, including witnesses referenced by the government and locating 

and interviewing witnesses who are contrary to the government’s assertions. 

Moreover, the indictment charges a conspiracy that allegedly began in 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 605 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 5
4

November of 2015 and continued through February 12 of 2016. Given the 

nature of the allegations, information regarding Mr. Anderson’s whereabouts 

and conduct during that timeframe will be relevant at trial. As such, 

investigation in this case is and will continue to be extensive and complex. 

It will be extremely difficult if not impossible to adequately investigate the 

case given the current timeframe.

11. Finally, the Court has currently scheduled a single trial for 25 

defendants at the same time. Such a trial would be unprecedented in sheer 

size and scope. Despite the best efforts of the Court, the government, 

defense counsel, and pro se defendants, there is a substantial risk that such a 

trial will deprive Mr. Anderson of a fair trial, and one at which they have a 

right to individualized consideration by the jury. A scheduling of a second 

trial in Spring of 2017 or thereafter would mitigate many of those risks.

12. For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Court 

continue the trial date for Mr. Anderson to March 1, 2017, or a date 

thereafter convenient to the Court.

/// /// ///

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 605 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 5
5

13. I have spoken with AUSA Geoffrey Barrow. Mr. Barrow reports 

that the government will take no position on such motions until the status 

conference set for June 15, 2016.

DATED this 24th day of May, 2016.

/s/ Matthew McHenry

Matthew McHenry, OSB 043571

Attorney for Defendant Sean Anderson

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 605 Filed 05/24/16 Page 5 of 5