Ammon Bundy and four of his co-defendants are set to be temporarily transferred to Nevada on Wednesday after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday denied their request to block the move.
Defense lawyers had requested the appellate court put a hold on U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown's order for their clients' temporary transfer to Nevada, arguing that it will impair their ability to effectively represent their clients and prepare for a trial now set for Sept. 7 in Oregon.
Ammon Bundy, Ryan Bundy, Ryan Payne, Brian Cavalier and Blaine Cooper are among 19 facing federal indictment in Nevada stemming from the 2014 armed standoff with federal officers outside the Bundy Ranch near Bunkerville, Nevada. They also face federal indictments in Oregon in the 41-day armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge outside Burns.
A three-member panel of the appellate court issued the ruling, citing a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, but without further explanation.
The appellate court cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Hilton v. Braunskil, which reiterated standards governing when a hold, or stay, should be placed on a civil judgement: when the person requesting it has made a strong showing that he or she is likely to succeed on the merits; that the person will be irreparably injured without a hold; whether issuing a hold would substantially harm other parties and and where the public interest lies.
Ammon Bundy's lawyer Mike Arnold, responding to the ruling, said Tuesday: "Ammon Bundy will not sacrifice his right to a fair trial for his right to a speedy trial. The government should dismiss the Nevada case until the Oregon case is resolved or create a machine that will allow my client to be in two places at once.''
Brown has said she believes the narrow tailoring of her order -- that the five co-defendants be taken to Nevada to make their initial court appearances in Las Vegas and then return to Oregon by April 25 -- won't cause the defendants "irreparable harm.''
Defense lawyers argued that federal prosecutors in Nevada lacked the authority to demand the defendants be transferred to their jurisdiction, when the defendants are already facing indictment in Oregon.
They've said that transferring the five co-defendants to Nevada, even for a brief time, would violate their clients' rights to effective representation in preparation for trial. Splitting time between courtrooms and jail cells in Oregon and Nevada would severely compromise their ability to meaningfully communicate with their defense attorneys and would interfere with their rights to speedy trials, they argue.
Federal prosecutors countered that the defendants did not meet the burden of proving any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant placing a hold, or a stay, on the defendants' transfer.
-- Maxine Bernstein
mbernstein@oregonian.com
503-221-8212
@maxoregonian