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. 

BROWN, Judge. 

3:16-cr-00051-BR 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 

ISSUE JURY SUMMONSES 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Memorandum 

(#547) in Support of Issuing Summons to Jurors from the Entire 

1 - ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE JURY SUMMONSES 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 599 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 7
District of Oregon and the government's Response (#591) to 

Defendants' Memorandum. At issue in the parties' Memoranda is 

from which "Jury Management Division(s)" designated in the 

Court's "Juror Management Plan" adopted February 2, 2015, the 

Clerk will summons petit jurors to participate in the jury 

selection and trial proceedings to begin in this matter on 

September 7, 2016. 

For the reasons that follow, the Court directs the Clerk to 

issue jury summonses as soon as practicable to 1,500 potential 

petit jurors drawn proportionally from the existing Qualified 

Wheels for each of the four Jury Management Divisions for the 

District of Oregon. 

DISCUSSION 

Section 1.07 of the Juror Management Plan provides that 

"Jurors will be selected for service from a single division or 

from any combination of divisions as the Chief Judge 1 may from 

time to time direct." Section 1.04 of the Juror Management Plan, 

consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 1861, states the policy on which the 

Plan is based as follows: "It is the policy of the Court that 

all litigants in this Court, entitled to trial by jury, shall 

1 By his Order (#421), Chief Judge Michael W. Mosman has for 

purposes of this proceeding delegated to the undersigned judicial 

officer all authority granted to the Chief Judge under the Juror 

Management Plan. 

2 - ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE JURY SUMMONSES 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 599 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 7
have the right to grand and petit juries selected at random from 

a fair cross section of the community in the district or division 

wherein the Court convenes . " The Court notes the Juror 

Management Plan does not expressly provide a procedure by which 

the Court is to draw petit jurors from multiple divisions, but 

when the Court empanels a grand jury composed of jurors from 

multiple divisions or the entire district, the Plan provides the 

Clerk is to draw such grand jurors "at random from the qualified 

wheel of each division . . in the same ratio that the number of 

registered voters in each division bears to the total number of 

registered voters in the combined or in the district." Juror 

Management Plan§ 4.07(b). 

By letter dated April 27, 2016, Defendants noted the events 

on which the Superseding Indictment is based are alleged to have 

occurred within Harney County, Oregon, which is within the 

Pendleton Jury Management Division as defined in the Juror 

Management Plan. Although Defendants presumed "the only reason 

the defendants were brought to Portland for trial was for 

logistical reasons of ensuring facilities and resources adequate 

for a trial of this size and magnitude," the Court notes that the 

recently filed Declaration (#538) of Jury Administrator explained 

the various Indictments in this matter were returned in Portland 

by grand jurors proportionally and randomly drawn from the 

combined Portland and Pendleton Divisions (the so-called 

3 - ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE JURY SUMMONSES 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 599 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 7
"Northern" Jury Management Division) . 

Defendants collectively argued in their letter that 

summonses should be issued to "prospective jurors from the entire 

District of Oregon" in order to "ensure the defendants are 

afforded their Sixth Amendment and statutory right to juries that 

represent a fair a cross-section of the community." In their 

Memorandum (#547) in Support of Issuing Summons to Jurors from 

the Entire District of Oregon, the majority of Defendants further 

contended the Court should draw an equal number of prospective 

jurors from each Division. Some Defendants, however, contend 

this Court should issue summonses only to prospective jurors in 

the Pendleton Division, and only summons jurors from other 

Divisions in the event that there are an insufficient number of 

qualified jurors in the Pendleton Division. 

The government, on the other hand, contends "[c]onsistent 

with district practice, and because of the absence of any 

controlling legal authority to the contrary, it is the 

government's position that jurors outside of the Portland 

Division should not be drawn." The government also argues that 

drawing jurors from outside the Portland Division will impart an 

unreasonable burden on those jurors drawn from remote locations. 

Although the Court agrees summonsing potential jurors from areas 

distant from the Portland courthouse may impart a hardship on 

some such jurors, the determination of whether a juror may be 

4 - ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE JURY SUMMONSES 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 599 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 7
excused for hardship will be made on an individual basis during 

the juror summonsing and selection process. 

"A petit jury may be drawn constitutionally from only one 

di vision and not the whole district." United States v. Herbert, 

698 F.2d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 1983). "[A] judge may hold a trial 

anywhere in a district at his or her discretion," and the "use of 

separate divisional jury wheels are by themselves permissible." 

United States v. Etsitty, 130 F.3d 420, 425 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Nonetheless, 28 U.S.C. § 1861 permits a district court to draw a 

jury from a "fair cross section of the community in the district 

or division wherein the court convenes." 

This case presents several challenges that affect the 

summonsing and selection of a jury, including a trial that is 

expected to last up to three months and perhaps longer, 

consistent discussion of the case in the media, and strong, 

opposing opinions in some quarters about the underlying facts. 

The Court notes these proceedings "convened" in the Mark 0. 

Hatfield United States Courthouse in the Portland Division both 

because the grand jurors from the combined Portland and Pendleton 

Divisions returned the three Indictments in the Hatfield 

Courthouse and because the randomly-assigned judicial officer 

presiding in this matter is assigned to that courthouse. In 

addition, the Mark 0. Hatfield Courthouse in the Portland 

Division is the only federal courthouse in the District with the 

5 - ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE JURY SUMMONSES 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 599 Filed 05/24/16 Page 5 of 7
capability to accommodate the extraordinary logistical demands 

involved in this case, including the fact that all but three of 

the participating counsel have offices in the Portland Division 

and the United States Marshal's Office has most of its deputies 

and Court Security Officers assigned to the Portland Division. 

But the fact the proceedings have "convened" in the Portland 

Division does not necessarily require that the petit jurors for 

this trial be drawn only from the Portland Division. In the 

exercise of its discretion under § 1.04 of the Juror Management 

Plan, the Court concludes drawing potential jurors from the 

entire District of Oregon will ensure the Court can both summons 

a sufficient number of jurors and provide the fairest "cross 

section of the community" in which the Court convenes and the 

underlying events took place. See 2a u.s.c. § 1861. 

The Court, however, declines to draw potential jurors 

equally from the Court's four Divisions because doing so would 

result in certain portions of the District of Oregon being 

substantially over-represented in the jury pool, and, as a 

result, would undermine selecting a jury from a fair cross 

section of the community. Moreover, drawing a petit jury from 

the entire District on a proportional basis from each of the Jury 

Management Divisions within the District is consistent with the 

policy of drawing grand jurors for multi-divisional grand juries 

on a proportional basis. Juror Management Plan§ 4.07(b). 

6 - ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE JURY SUMMONSES 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 599 Filed 05/24/16 Page 6 of 7
Accordingly, for these reasons the Court directs the Clerk 

to issue jury summonses as soon as practicable to summons 1,500 

potential petit jurors' drawn proportionally from the existing 

Qualified Wheels for each of the four Jury Management Divisions 

for the District of Oregon. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 24th day of May, 2016. 

ANNA J. BROWN 

United States District Judge 

2 The parties previously agreed an initial jury pool of 

1,500 prospective jurors would be sufficient. 

7 - ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ISSUE JURY SUMMONSES 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 599 Filed 05/24/16 Page 7 of 7