ShareThis Page

Jury refuses to convict in Nevada ranch standoff

| Tuesday, Aug. 22, 2017, 8:12 p.m.
In this Feb. 6, 2017, file photo, supporters and critics of defendants on trial for charges relating to a 2014 ranch standoff at the federal courthouse gather in Las Vegas.
In this Feb. 6, 2017, file photo, supporters and critics of defendants on trial for charges relating to a 2014 ranch standoff at the federal courthouse gather in Las Vegas.

LAS VEGAS — A federal jury in Las Vegas refused Tuesday to convict four accused gunman in a 2014 standoff with federal authorities near the Nevada ranch of states' rights figure Cliven Bundy.

In a verdict that delivered a stunning setback to federal prosecutors, the jury acquitted Ricky Lovelien and Steven Stewart of all 10 charges against them.

Defendants Scott Drexler and Eric Parker were found not guilty of most charges against them. The jury did not reach verdicts on four charges against Parker and two charges against Drexler.

The results stunned a courtroom full of the defendants' supporters, many of whom broke into applause after Chief U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro ordered Lovelien and Stewart freed immediately.

The judge set a hearing Wednesday to decide whether to free Parker and Drexler pending a decision by prosecutors whether to try them for a third time.

Prosecutors said the men conspired with Bundy family members and wielded weapons to threaten the lives of federal agents enforcing lawful court orders to remove Bundy cattle from public land after he failed to pay grazing fees.

Each man standing trial in Las Vegas faced 10 charges including conspiracy, interstate travel in aid of extortion, weapon possession and assault and threatening a federal officer.

Combined, the counts carried the possibility of more than 100 years in federal prison.

The four were among 19 men arrested in early 2016, nearly two years after the confrontation near the rural town of Bunkerville, about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas.

All 19 remained in federal custody, despite pleas from family members and attorneys for the release of those who have not been brought to trial. Bundy's attorney, Bret Whipple, notes that his client is now 71.

Bundy stopped paying grazing fees decades ago, saying he refused to recognize federal authority over public land where he said his family grazed cattle since before the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was created.

The dispute has roots a nearly half-century fight over public lands in Nevada and the West, where the federal government controls vast expanses of land.

Calls for action have grown louder and more frequent in recent years with internet bloggers protesting federal agency decisions to designate protected areas for endangered species and set aside tracts for mining, wind farms and natural gas exploration.

Prosecutors characterize the standoff as an armed uprising by self-styled militia members who answered a Bundy family call to take up arms to prevent the lawful enforcement of multiple court orders to remove Bundy cattle from what is now the Gold Butte National Monument.

Defense attorneys cast the tense standoff as an ultimately peaceful protest involving people upset about aggressive tactics used by federal land managers and contract cowboys.

They point to skirmishes days earlier involving armed federal agents using dogs and stun guns against Bundy family members; the closure of a vast range half the size of the state of Delaware to collect Bundy's cattle; and corrals set up as protest “First Amendment zone” protest areas for people.

A first trial earlier this year involved men who carried guns, but who prosecutors characterized as the least culpable of the co-defendants. It lasted two months and ended in April with a jury unable to reach verdicts for the four men, while finding two other defendants guilty of some charges.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.