IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER,

JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN

PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN

CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER

SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK,

DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON,

DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE

BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON,

KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE

COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY

LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON

CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL

WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY

STANEK, TRAVIS COX, ERIC LEE

FLORES, and JAKE RYAN,

Defendants.

3:16-cr-00051-BR

 

ORDER

BROWN, Judge.

On August 3, 2016, the Court conducted its regular monthly

Status Hearing at which all of the parties set to proceed to

1 - ORDER
trial beginning September 7, 2016, were present. Following that

hearing, the Court issues this Order:

PREPARATION FOR THE PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

The Pretrial Conference will begin at 9:00 a.m. on 

August 22, 2016, in Courtroom 13A.

At the Status Hearing, Defendants requested the Court to

extend their deadline for filing pretrial documents including any

trial memoranda, witness and exhibit lists, and motions in limine

from August 5, 2016, until August 10, 2016. The government did

not object to Defendants’ request. The Court GRANTS Defendants’

request, and, therefore, Defendants’ pretrial documents are now

due no later than 5:00 p.m., August 10, 2016. The Court,

nonetheless, strongly encourages Defendants to file on August 5,

2016, as originally scheduled any of their papers that can be

reasonably completed by then. The government’s responses to

Defendants’ filings are due no later than August 17, 2016.

In addition, the Court directs the parties to confer and to

advise the Court via a single, joint message sent to the

Courtroom Deputy no later than August 12, 2016, of their

recommendations as to the amount of time the Court should

allocate at the Pretrial Conference for oral argument and

resolution of all evidentiary issues and to facilitate preadmission of evidence. The Court notes pre-admission of

2 - ORDER
uncontested exhibits can be handled relatively quickly at the

Pretrial Conference, and, therefore, the parties only need to

provide time estimates for the resolution of ripe, contested

evidentiary issues as to the admissibility of trial testimony and

exhibits. In addition, the parties should include in their

message the logical order in which they propose the Court should

hear argument on the evidentiary issues and the amount of time

the parties believe will be necessary to hear and to resolve each

such issue.

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The Court will provide the parties shortly with the Court’s

first draft of preliminary jury instructions, including

“elements” instructions which the Court intends to use at the

beginning of trial and before opening statements. In order to

finalize such instructions by the end of the Pretrial Conference

the Court directs the parties to confer and to provide their

initial feedback regarding the first draft of such instructions

by a single, joint message at a time to be set by the Court, and

the Court will then continue corresponding with the parties in

advance of the Pretrial Conference in an effort to reach a

“final” set of preliminary instructions as to which the parties

may take any exceptions on the record at the Pretrial Conference.

3 - ORDER
ORDER AND TIME FOR OPENING STATEMENTS AND PROCEDURE

FOR WITNESS EXAMINATION

The Court discussed with the parties the order and amount of

time needed for opening statements as well as the need to settle

the process for Defendants to examine witnesses in this multiDefendant trial in a nonduplicative and efficient manner that

still allows each Defendant to develop his or her theory of

defense. The Court directs Defendants to confer and to send to

the Court and the government’s counsel a single, joint message

with their proposals as to (1) their respective estimates for the

time needed for each Defendant’s opening statement, (2) the order

in which Defendants propose to make their opening statements, and

(3) the order and manner in which Defendants propose to crossexamine government witnesses and conduct direct examination of

their own witnesses. The Court reserves it authority to

determine the order and manner of proof and intends to address

Defendants’ proposals at the Pretrial Conference. 

DEFENDANT KENNETH MEDENBACH’S MOTION (#971) TO ALLOW

HYBRID COUNSEL

The Court engaged in a colloquy with Defendant Kenneth

Medenbach concerning his Motion (#971) to Allow Hybrid Counsel in

which Medenbach proposes to permit his standby counsel to conduct

witness examination and evidentiary presentation, but subject to

Medenbach’s control over making opening and closing arguments as

4 - ORDER
well as trial strategy. The Court advised Medenbach that because

he retains control over trial strategy, he likely cannot succeed

with any future claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the

event he is convicted. In addition, the Court advised Medenbach

that, like all other parties, he is required to follow Court

orders regarding the admissibility of evidence and allowable

arguments and will not be permitted to introduce irrelevant or

duplicative material. Both Defendant Medenbach and his standby

counsel stated they understood these limitations and that both

were comfortable with proceeding in this manner.

Absent direct opposition from the government, on this record

the Court GRANTS Medenbach’s Motion (#971) to Allow Hybrid

Counsel.

DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX’S MOTION (#975) TO SUPPRESS

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION

The Court discussed with standby counsel for Shawna Cox the

timeliness of Defendant Cox’s Motion (#975) to Suppress

Eyewitness Identification in light of previously set casemanagement deadlines and noted this Motion was filed two-and-ahalf months after the deadline for motions to suppress evidence. 

Based on good cause shown at the Status Hearing, the Court,

nevertheless, deems Cox’s Motion to be timely.

The Court directs the government to respond to Cox’s Motion

5 - ORDER
no later than 5:00 p.m., August 9, 2016. Cox may file an

optional reply memorandum no later than Noon, August 12, 2016. 

The Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing and oral argument

on August 19, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 13A.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

6 - ORDER