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.

The Court conducted the regular monthly Status Hearing on

May 4, 2016, to address issues the parties raised in their

1 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 523 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 8
Joint Status Report (#488) filed April 28, 2016, and to

address case-management issues in general.

DEADLINES SET

On the record before the Court and in light of the

parties’ representations and arguments at the May 4, 2016,

hearing, the Court makes the following Orders:

1. The Court directs Defendants (through appropriate

representatives) to confer with the Multnomah County Sheriff’s

Office regarding defense counsel’s access to Defendants in

custody at the Multnomah County Detention Center and other

Multnomah County jail facilities as well as the access of

those Defendants to the materials necessary for them to

prepare and/or to assist in their defense. To the extent that

Defendants’ issues are not resolved and require court

intervention, the Court directs Defendants to confer with the

government and to file no later than May 18, 2016, a single,

joint statement concisely outlining each issue and the

parties’ positions and reasons in opposition.

2. The Court directs the government to respond to the

Motion (#493) to Compel Discovery filed by Defendant David Lee

Fry no later than May 16, 2016. The Court will address

Defendant Fry’s Motion during argument on the Round One

2 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 523 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 8
motions to be held beginning May 23, 2016.

3. The Court directs the government to file a response

to Defendant Kenneth Medenbach’s Motion (#505) to Dismiss no

later than May 16, 2016. If the Court determines oral

argument would be helpful, the Court will conduct oral

argument on Defendant Medenbach’s Motion at the hearing set to

begin May 23, 2016.

4. To assist the parties with their arguments regarding

Defendant Ryan Bundy’s Motion (#481) to Inspect Grand Jury

Records, the Court will obtain and file in the record a

Declaration from the Jury Administrator that sets out the

basic facts regarding the Divisions of this District from

which grand jurors are selected generally and the geographic

composition of the grand juries relevant to this case. The

Court directs the government to file a response to Ryan

Bundy’s Motion no later than May 16, 2016. If issues remain

as to this Motion as of May 23, 2016, the Court will conduct

oral argument on Defendant Ryan Bundy’s Motion at the hearing

set to begin May 23, 2016.

5. The Court directs Amy Baggio, counsel for Defendant

Joseph O’Shaughnessy, to file a status report regarding the

timing of Defendants’ potential motion regarding nationalsecurity methods of investigation no later than May 9, 2016.

3 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 523 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 8
6. The Court directs Richard Federico, counsel for

Defendant Ryan Payne, and Assistant United States Attorney

Geoffrey Barrow as representatives of the parties to file no

later than May 11, 2016, a jointly proposed agenda (with

proposed allotments of time) for oral arguments on the Round

One Motions that will begin on May 23, 2016.

7. With respect to oral argument on the anticipated

Round Two Motions as to the issues common to multiple

Defendants, the Court directs the parties to propose jointly

no later than May 11, 2016, possible dates for oral

argument and any necessary evidentiary hearings. The Court

also directs Defendants to file all Round Two Motions no later

than June 15, 2016. The government’s responses to those

Motions are due no later than June 29, 2016.

8. The Court will conduct the next regular Status

Hearing on June 15, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. Signed waivers of

appearance are due no later than June 1, 2016. The parties’

joint status report is due no later than June 8, 2016.

MOTIONS TO CONTINUE AND WAIVERS OF SPEEDY-TRIAL RIGHTS

At the status hearing the Court discussed motions to

continue the trial date, motions to sever, and/or waivers of

speedy trial rights that any Defendant may wish to file,

4 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 523 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 8
including the First Motion (#379) to Continue filed by

Defendant Eric Lee Flores and the Waiver (#458) of Speedy

Trial filed by Defendant Sandra Lynn Anderson. The Court will

now consider appropriate motions by out-of-custody Defendants

who wish to go to trial after the current September 7, 2016,

trial setting to the extent that those motions are predicated

on the Defendant’s waiver of speedy-trial rights and/or an

irreconcilable scheduling conflict of counsel.

1 The Court

notes, however, that any Defendant for whom the September 7,

2016, trial date is continued will still be required to

participate in the Round One and Round Two Motions and will be

bound by the resolutions of those Motions to the extent they

are applicable to such Defendant(s). The Court directs the

parties to include in their next Joint Status Report due June

8, 2016, a joint proposal as to (1) a reasonable date by which

any motions to sever from the September 7, 2016, trial must be

filed and (2) a new trial date for those Defendants who will

not go to trial in September.

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The Court reminds the parties that their first draft of

1 The Court notes since the May 4, 2016, Status Hearing,

Defendant Flores has filed an Amended Motion (#519) for

Continuance of Trial Date.

5 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 523 Filed 05/06/16 Page 5 of 8
jointly proposed jury instructions as to the elements of the

charged offenses and any substantive defenses are due no later

than June 15, 2016. These proposed jury instructions must be

filed in a single, joint filing and include (1) a neutral

statement of the case proposed by the parties for the Court’s

use during jury selection and in other instructions to the

jury; (2) proposed instructions as to the elements of all

charged offenses for all Defendants who will go to trial on

September 7, 2016; and (3) elemental instructions for any

substantive defense matters.

To the extent that the parties’ proposals differ with

respect to any instruction, the parties must set out

separately within the single, joint filing the parties’

respective proposals and include a footnote or other clearly

marked section containing a concise statement of the authority

supporting each party’s position.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS DISCUSSED

At the Status Hearing the Court reviewed with the parties

the possibility of re-arranging Courtroom 13A as currently

configured to accommodate this multi-defendant jury trial

beginning on September 7, 2016. The Court noted the

possibility of providing the parties additional space and

6 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 523 Filed 05/06/16 Page 6 of 8
counsel tables by removing the gallery and designating a

separate courtroom where the public (including media) could

observe the proceedings by video. Counsel for Ammon Bundy

stated an objection to any arrangement that would not permit

in-person observation of the trial by the public. The Court

directs the parties to confer as to this issue and to include

in their Joint Status Report due June 8, 2016, a concise

statement of their positions on this proposal together with a

concise summary of the authority that supports any opposition.

The Court also discussed with the parties various

proposals regarding the process to be followed in issuing jury

summonses. In particular, the Court heard the parties’

recommendations regarding a potential expansion of the

ordinary petit jury pool in the Portland Division to include

the entire District of Oregon for this case or even to limit

the pool of jurors only to the Pendleton Division. The Court

has taken the parties’ proposals under advisement and will

issue a jury plan that will set out the procedure to be used

for summonsing potential jurors in the near future so that

jury summonses may issue in sufficient time for in-court jury

selection to being on September 7, 2016.

The Court also took under advisement the Motions (#456

and #476) for Preservation Order and will issue an order in

7 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 523 Filed 05/06/16 Page 7 of 8
due course without further argument.

Finally, the Court discussed with the parties the Motion

(#472) for Discovery regarding the production of co-defendant

statements pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123

(1968). The Court notes it cannot efficiently resolve this

Motion until the anticipated Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)

motion has been filed and there is a clearer picture of which

Defendants will be going to trial on September 7, 2016.

Accordingly, the Court tabled this Motion for further

discussion at the Status Hearing on June 15, 2016. To

facilitate that discussion, the Court directs the parties to

include in their next Joint Status Report due June 8, 2016, an

updated report as to when the parties and the Court can

address the merits of this issue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 6th day of May, 2016.

s/ Anna J. Brown

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

8 - ORDER

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 523 Filed 05/06/16 Page 8 of 8