Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1202

Filed 09/06/16

Page 1 of 3

BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366

United States Attorney
District of Oregon
ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984
GEOFFREY A. BARROW
CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571
Assistant United States Attorneys
ethan.knight@usdoj.gov
geoffrey.barrow@usdoj.gov
craig.gabriel@usdoj.gov
1000 SW Third Ave., Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2902
Telephone: (503) 727-1000
Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
AMMON BUNDY,
RYAN BUNDY, and
DAVID LEE FRY,

3:16-CR-00051-BR
GOVERNMENTS OPPOSITION TO
MEMORANDUM REGARDING
DEFENDANTS TRIAL CLOTHING
(#1201)

Defendants.
The United States of America, by Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the
District of Oregon, and through Ethan D. Knight, Geoffrey A. Barrow, and Craig J. Gabriel,
Assistant United States Attorneys, hereby submits this opposition to Defendant Ammon Bundys
Memorandum Regarding Defendants Trial Clothing (ECF No. 1201), filed by defendant
Ammon Bundy on behalf of all in-custody defendants.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

I.

Document 1202

Filed 09/06/16

Page 2 of 3

Governments Position
It is the government position that the United States Marshals Service clothing

prohibitions be upheld by this Court. There is no controlling legal authority that permits
defendants to wear civilian clothes of their own choosing during trial.
II.

Legal Argument
There is no controlling legal authority that permits defendants to appear at trial in

clothing of their own choice.

Indeed, defendants concede as much.

(Defs Mem. 2).

government agrees that defendants have a right to be tried in civilian clothing.

The

The issue before

the Court is whether they get to choose that clothing. They do not, and there is no prejudice
that arises from such a limitation.
Defendants sole right as guaranteed by the United States Constitution as it relates to trial
attire is that the government cannot compel an accused to stand trial before a jury while dressed
in identifiable prison clothes. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512 (1976).

The failure to

make an objection to a defendants appearance in prison garb is insufficient to negate the

presence of compulsion necessary to establish a constitutional violation. There is no
constitutional violation unless the record shows that the accuseds clothing would be
identifiable to the jury as prison garments. United States v. Rogers, 769 F.2d 1418, 1423 (9th
Cir. 1985). There is no evidence before the Court that defendants attire could be regarded as
identifiable prison clothes.
///
///

Governments Opposition to Memorandum Regarding Defendants Trial

Clothing (#1201)

Page 2

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

III.

Document 1202

Filed 09/06/16

Page 3 of 3

Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, the government requests that to the extent defendants

Memorandum is treated as a motion to permit access to clothing described in defendants

Memorandum, it be denied.
Dated this 6th day of September 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
BILLY J. WILLIAMS
United States Attorney

s/ Ethan D. Knight
ETHAN D. KNIGHT, OSB #992984
GEOFFREY A. BARROW
CRAIG J. GABRIEL, OSB #012571
Assistant United States Attorneys

Governments Opposition to Memorandum Regarding Defendants Trial

Clothing (#1201)

Page 3