Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1439

Filed 10/13/16

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF

OREGON

UNITED STATES

''
:''I
t:i
'_.,

v.

SHAWNA COX, et al

OBJECTION TO THE COURT'S COORDINATION WITH PROSECUTION

REGARDING PRESCREENING OF DEFENSE WITNESSES
I, Shawna Cox, hereby object to the Court's coordination with the prosecution
regarding the selection of defense witnesses.
Beginning prior to the week of October 2, the trial court began
demanding that all defense witnesses be prescreened by the court and
prosecution. (No such requirement was imposed on prosecution witnesses.) As the
defense case unfolds, the Court's impositions and demands of exactness and
specificity have grown more extreme. The Court's micromanagement of the
defense case has severely limited and impeded Defendants from defending
themselves.
PROSECUTION HAS OBJECTED TO ALMOST EVERY DEFENSE WITNESS
The Court's lopsided demands have so empowered the prosecution that the
defense has had to release numerous witnesses and scuttle much of its strategy.
This week, the Government has sought to eliminate virtually every proposed
defense witness. The only witnesses approved by the government, apparently, are
paid government informants or the defendants themselves.
Of course the Constitution grants to defendants a right to compulsory
process, as well as rights to due process of law and to confront accusers. The
Court's micromanagement violates all of these provisions as well as the
Defendants' right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment.

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1439

Filed 10/13/16

Page 2 of 3

As Justice Black said, to the extent that a judge takes responsibility for the facts, it
reduces the function of the jury. See Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372, 407
(1943) (Black, J., dissenting). A trial court "should exercise self-restraint and
preserve an atmosphere of impartiality and detachment," Pariser v. City ofNew
York, 146 F.2d 431, 433 (2d Cir. 1945) (A. Hand, J.),
While it is a judge's privilege and duty to take an active part in the trial
where necessary to clarify evidence and assist the jury, a judge must studiously
avoid one-sidedness. See Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 470 (1933).
In the case at hand the Court allowed the prosecution to bury the courtroom
with ammunition and guns but has denied to the defense even a right to put on
witnesses who might corroborate a defendant's testimony.
The court has collaborated with the prosecution to prevent the defense from
putting on an evidence of the militarization occurring around Burns during the
occupation, but appears poised to allow the government to introduce, in its rebuttal
case, evidence that the community was overwhelmingly supportive of law
enforcement.
The Defendant objects.

Respectfully submitted,

Shawna Cox
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Shawna Cox, do hereby certify and attest that on October 13, 2016, I caused a true copy of this
document to be sent to all parties of record in the case, through the Court's electronic filing system.

DECLARATION OF SHAWNA COX with attachments

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1439

Filed 10/13/16

Page 3 of 3

I, Shawna Cox do swear under oath, under penalties of perjury, that the following facts are true and
within my knowledge:
(1) The District Court's micromanagement of my defense case has severely harmed my trial
presentation and strategy;
(2) I had planned for certain defense witnesses to come first, and others to help fill in my defense
narrative in the middle of my defense case, followed by others who would provide strong
emphasis for my defense at the end of my defense presentation.
(3) For example, my defense strategy was to have witnesses Todd Bethel and Duane Schrock
provide a flurry of compelling testimony on finish.
(4) The District Court's micromanagement my defense case-and elimination of my most important
witnesses-has severely altered, harmed and infringed on the flow of my defense case.
(5) I am attaching two examples of proffer information regarding two witnesses; though this is a
sample not a complete list.
Signed under penalty of perjury,
Dated

()d. Is,,, 2P&

~~