Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1117

Filed 08/26/16

Page 1 of 2

J. Morgan Philpot (Oregon Bar No. 144811)

Marcus R. Mumford (admitted pro hac vice)
405 South Main, Suite 975
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
(801) 428-2000
morgan@jmphilpot.com
mrm@mumfordpc.com
Attorneys for Defendant Ammon Bundy
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AMMON BUNDY, et al.,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR-05

REVISED NOTICE OF EXPERT
TESTIMONY ON ISSUES OF FIREARMS,
FORCE, AND BRANDISHING
Judge: Hon. Anna J. Brown

Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and as

indicated and authorized at the recent hearing held August 24, 2016, where the Court heard voir
dire examination of Charles P. Stephenson as a potential defense expert, Defendant Ammon
Bundy revises and supplements the prior notice regarding Mr. Stephensons anticipated opinion
testimony as follows:
I.

QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING AND EXPERTISE

Mr. Bundy understands that the Court was satisfied that Mr. Stephenson possessed the
requisite qualifications for his anticipated testimony.

II.

SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED TESTIMONY

Mr. Bundy supplements the prior summary of Mr. Stephensons testimony to include his
anticipated testimony explaining, based on the relevant background, training, knowledge,
and experience, how carrying a firearm is distinguishable from using that firearm to
threaten or intimidate others, and why it would be incorrect to assume that carrying a

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1117

Filed 08/26/16

Page 2 of 2

firearm or possessing a firearm is the same as using it to threaten or intimidate. In this

regard, it is anticipated that Mr. Stephensons testimony would cover the recognized law
enforcement standards that would distinguish legal open carry of either a handgun, long
rifle, or other sub-classification of weapon (for example, clarifying the confusion
surrounding the use and possession of a so-called assault weapon, and distinguishing
that from the common image of an automatic weapon) from the type of carry that would
be classified as menacing, threatening, or brandishing. This includes what law
enforcement and others are often trained to look for to indicate the training and skill of
the individual carrying the firearm, and other standards regarding the placement of ones
hands on the weapon, how it is being carried in a responsible or irresponsible manner,
and other contextual factors that distinguish peaceful or benign actions with a firearm
from threatening ones. Mr. Stephenson would also testify in order to educate the jury
regarding use of force and certain terms of art or indicators used within the community of
gun owners and law enforcement that help distinguish peaceful actions from threatening
actions. Finally, Mr. Stephenson will testify regarding background in the field of force
science generally force science being the field of study involving law enforcement and
others to determine when force is being threatened as applied to the issues presented in
this case, such as open carry, alleged threats or intimidation regarding the use of force,
and what actions or facts indicate and distinguish brandishing from peaceful actions
involving firearms.
Respectfully submitted this 26th day of August, 2016.
/s/ Marcus R. Mumford
Marcus R. Mumford
J. Morgan Philpot
Attorneys for Ammon Bundy