October 26, 2017 Posted by Daryl Johnson in Media Interviews

LAS VEGAS, [NV]--When the third in a series of trials over the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada gets underway, prosecutors will be able to use testimony from an expert in extremism and domestic terrorism, the judge in the case has ruled. Defense attorneys for one of the accused Bundy supporters, Ryan Payne, of Montana, had sought to keep much of the federal agent’s testimony out of the case, saying his expertise on militias and terrorism would prejudice the jury. Jury selection for the trial—which includes Payne, Cliven Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan—begins next week. The men are facing a raft of charges related to the armed confrontation, near Bunkerville, Nevada, which prevented federal agents from confiscating cattle that had been illegally grazing on public land for decades. Domestic terrorism did not factor much into two previous trials of Bundy supporters, earlier this year. Prosecutors said explicitly they were not trying to prove the defendants were “domestic terrorists.” In fact, how authorities describe domestic terrorism is complicated. Nearly every agency that deals with the issue has its own definition. Muslim Americans are often more readily deemed terrorists than other Americans, says Daryl Johnson, a law enforcement consultant and former counterterrorism expert at the Department of Homeland Security: “A different standard is being applied to Muslims than to other people,” he told Reuters. Johnson sees the Bundys’ actions differently—more akin to sedition than domestic terrorism. The defense attorney Leventhal says using the term for his client would have been ridiculous. View More>>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*