20150410 #102 motion in limine or in alternative proffer of conconspirator statements

7/21/2019 20150410 #102 Motion in Limine or in Alternative Proffer of Conconspirator Statements

1/72


2/72

2

STATEMENT OF ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY

To prove a conspiracy existed, the United States must show:

1. There was an agreement to violate the law;

2. The defendant knew the essential objective of the conspiracy;

3. The defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy;

4. An overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy;

5. The coconspirators were interdependent.

United States v. Bedford, 536 F.3d 1148,1156 (10th Cir. 2008).

STATEMENT OF FACTS BY ELEMENT OF CONSPIRACY

I. The Agreement to Violate the Law

1. On September 13, 2007, under the authority of43 C.F.R. 8341.2(a),the

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) closed Recapture Canyon to recreational motorized use

because the authorized officer in BLMs Blanding Field Office determined that off-road vehicle

use had caused damage to the cultural resources in Recapture Canyon . . . . ECF No. 78-1 at 2

of 15.

2. Under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(FLPMA), the Department of the Interior promulgated a regulation that provides: The

operation of off-road vehicles is prohibited on those areas and trails closed to off-road vehicle

use. 43 C.F.R. 8341.1(c).

3. FLPMA makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully violate a regulation

promulgated thereunder. 43 U.S.C. 1733(a). Section 8341.1(c) is such a regulation.

Case 2:14-cr-00470-TC-BCW Document 102 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 21
http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2016737431&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2016737431&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2016737431&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2016737431&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2016737431&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2016737431&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43CFRS8341.2&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000547&wbtoolsId=43CFRS8341.2&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43CFRS8341.2&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000547&wbtoolsId=43CFRS8341.2&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43CFRS8341.2&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000547&wbtoolsId=43CFRS8341.2&HistoryType=Fhttps://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18303282697https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18303282697https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18303282697http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43CFRS8341.1&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000547&wbtoolsId=43CFRS8341.1&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43CFRS8341.1&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000547&wbtoolsId=43CFRS8341.1&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43USCAS1733&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=43USCAS1733&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43USCAS1733&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=43USCAS1733&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43USCAS1733&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000546&wbtoolsId=43USCAS1733&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43CFRS8341.1&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000547&wbtoolsId=43CFRS8341.1&HistoryType=Fhttps://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18303282697https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/doc1/18303282697http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=43CFRS8341.2&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000547&wbtoolsId=43CFRS8341.2&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2016737431&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2016737431&HistoryType=F


3/72

3

4. On February 27, 2014, Defendant Phillip K. Lyman, as a San Juan County

Commissioner, convened a town meeting at which he and approximately 150 constituents

attended. ECF No. 72-2 at 18, 24, and 25 of 34; ECF No. 78-2 at 3 of 6. Mr. Wells also attended

the meeting. ECF No. 72 at 3.

5. At the meeting, Mr. Lyman and his constituents discussed their

dissatisfaction with public land management. ECF No. 72-2 at 18-19 of 34. Among the issues

discussed at the meeting was BLMsclosure of Recapture Canyon to motorized use. ECF No.

72-2 at 19 of 34. The result of the meeting, according to Mr. Lyman, was we said, well, lets go

ride Recapture. ECFNo. 72-2 at 19 of 34 (emphasis added).

6. The decision at the meeting was to hold the ride up Recapture Canyon on

May 8, 2014. ECF No. 72-2 at 24 of 34.

7. However, Mr. Lyman later changed the date to May 10, 2014 because the

8th was the Thursday and a lot of people wanted to come from outside the area. ECF No. 72-2 at

24 of 34. Mr. Lyman told BLM management about the changed date. ECF No. 72-2 at 25 of 34.

8. Mr. Lyman acknowledged that BLM did not give him permission to ride up

Recapture Canyon. ECF No. 72-2 at 26 of 34.

II. Defendants Knew the Essential Elements of the Conspiracy

1. As to Mr. Lymans knowledge of the essential elements of the conspiracy,

the United States incorporates herein facts 1-8 in section A. above.

2. Additionally, on April 27, 2014, Mr. Lyman posted on his Facebook page

an invitation to ride Recapture Canyon at the appointed date. In that invitation, Mr. Lyman stated



4/72

4

that BLM hadprecluded motorized machines from Recapture Canyon. He then states: I for

one plan to be riding an ATV. ECF No. 78-2 at 2 of 6. Mr. Lyman actually had to rent an ATV

to ride on May 10, 2014. ECF No. 72-2 at 12 of 34. Mr. Lyman rode into the closed portion of

Recapture Canyon on May 10, 2014. Exhibit A.

3. Mr. Lymans April 27, 2014 Facebook post recommends to readers a good

article on Recapture Canyon http://thepetroglyph.com/ride-capture-rim/. ECF No. 78-2 at 3 of 6.

4. Mr. Wells is the proprietor of the website known as The Petroglyph.

ECF No. 72 at 2.

5. On his website, Mr. Wells published an online article entitled

RecaptureOur Public Lands: Come and Join This Recapture Event. ECF No. 72-1 at 2 of 3.

6. Mr. Wells begins this article with a picture of Uncle Sam pointing at the

reader adjacent to the words WeNeed You!!! ECF No. 72-1 at 2 of 3.

7. In the article, Mr. Wells provides the May 10, 2014 date for the ride and the

purpose to [a]ssert local jurisdiction and challenge the overreach of federal agencies. He then

says, we welcome ALL supporters. ECF No. 72-1 at 2 of 3 (emphasis added).

8. Further down in the article, Mr. Wells states that [o]n the 10th We (sic)

will have some introductions, some introductions (sic), and I will explain the topography including

what trails have been closed by the BLM and which ones remain open. We will also have a flag

ceremony and will hear from some dignitaries. ECF No. 72-1 at 2 of 3 (emphasis added).

9. Mr. Wells appears to be reprinting Mr. Lymans April 27, 2014 Facebook

post, but Mr. Wells does not reference Mr. Lyman in his article. Like Mr. Lyman, Mr. Wells



5/72

5

post recognizes that BLM has deemed motorized machines unfit for riding in Recapture

Canyon. He also says, I for one plan to be riding an ATV, carefully and respectfully, on these

well established trails . . . ECF No. 72-1 at 2 of 3.

10. Prior to the May 10, 2014 ride up Recapture Canyon, Mr. Wells also

interviewed Mr. Lyman about Recapture Canyon and the forthcoming ride. ECF No. 72-2.

During this three-part interview, which was posted on YouTube, Mr. Lyman describes the ride,

how it came about, why it is going to happen, and that BLM said it was illegal. ECF No. 72-2 at

11 to 14; 18-34 of 34.

11. During the interview, Mr. Wells said of Recapture Canyon, Weve got

some issues with [the] trail itself, where it hasnt been maintained for the last 8 years, 7 years.

And so there are some places where you cant get through unless we do some trial maintenance,

actually. And stuff. But that may prevent us from riding parts of it or whatever, but there is (sic)

still some trails that have roads in them that werelooking at. ECF No. 72-2 at 29 of 34

(emphasis added). Later on in the interview, Mr. Wells added, Well, hopefully, then the media

will get tap (sic) and bring in a lot of people to come down with the intention to ride maybe the

trails . . . . You know, its time that something changes. ECF No. 72-2 at 31-32 of 34.

12. After his interview with Mr. Lyman, Mr. Wells showed up on May 10,

2014, with a handgun strapped to his leg, and rode Recapture Canyon on his four-wheel ATV.

Exhibit A.

13. Messrs. Marian and Holliday were present on May 10, 2014 for the rally

that occurred prior to the ride up Recapture Canyon. Exhibit A.



6/72

6

14. During the rally, speakers, including Mr. Lyman, stated the reason for the

ride up the closed portion of Recapture Canyon. Exhibit A.

15. Mr. Holliday was wearing a t-shirt that said, Dont Tread on Me, as he

and Mr. Marian rode their four-wheel ATVs together through the closed area of Recapture

Canyon.

III. Defendants Knowingly and Voluntarily Participated in the Conspiracy

1. The United States incorporates the facts in sections A and B above.

IV. Overt Acts Committed in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

1. On May 10, 2014, Messrs. Lyman, Wells, Holliday, and Marian rode their

motorized vehicles passed the closure sign and into Recapture Canyon, which was closed to

off-road vehicles. Defendants also passed another sign pointing the way to trails that were open

to off-road vehicles. Exhibit A.

V. Defendants Were Interdependent

1. The United States incorporates herein the facts in sections I, II, and IV

above.

DECLARANT STATEMENTS

1. On Sunday, March 2, 2014, Mr. Lyman emailed BLM State Director Juan Palma

about the February constituent meeting that resulted in the agreement to ride Recapture Canyon.

This email to Mr. Palma also contains an email that Mr. Lyman sent to his email group about the

February constituent meeting, the decision to ride Recapture Canyon on May 8, 2014, and their

protest of BLM policies. Exhibit B.



7/72

7

2. On March 2, 2014, Mr. Lyman posted on his Facebook page the email to his

constituents that he shared with Mr. Palma. Exhibit C.

3. On April 11, 2014, theDeseret Newspublished an editorial that Mr. Lyman had

authored notifying people to join the May 8, 2014 ride into Recapture Canyon and stating the

reasons behind it. Exhibit D.

4. On April 11, 2014, Mr. Lyman promoted hisDeseret Newsarticle on his Facebook

page and lamented the fact that theDeseret Newsdid not publish his direct invitation for others to

join the ride. Exhibit E.

5. On April 17, Mr. Lyman posted on his Facebook page that he was changing the date

of the ride through Recapture Canyon from May 8, 2014 to May 10, 2014 so more people can

come. Exhibit F.

6. April 21, 2014, Mr. Lyman admitted in a meeting of the San Juan County

Commission that he was the ringleader of the Recapture Canyon protest ride and stated that the

purpose of the ride was to protest BLMs closure of Recapture Canyon. Exhibit G.

7. On April 27, 2014, Mr. Lyman posted on his Facebook page another invitation to

the May 10, 2014, Recapture Canyon ride to [a]ssert local jurisdiction and challenge the

overreach of federal agencies. . . . It was deemed necessary at a town hall meeting in Blanding on

February 27, 2014, and we welcome ALL supporters. Mr. Lyman also recognizes the possibility

of a BLM enforcement action for the ride and states that he will be riding his ATV. Exhibit H.

8. On or about April 28, 2014, Mr. Wells interviewed Mr. Lyman about Recapture

Canyon, the May 10 protest ride, the reasons for it, and an invitation to participate. ECF No. 72 at



8/72


9/72

9

12. Mr. Wells appears to be reprinting much of Mr. Lymans April 27, 2014 Facebook

post, but Mr. Wells does not reference Mr. Lyman. Like Mr. Lyman, Mr. Wells post recognizes

that BLM has deemed motorized machines unfit for riding in Recapture Canyon. He also says,

I for one plan to be riding an ATV, carefully and respectfully, on these well established trails . . .

. ECF No. 72-1 at 2 of 3.

13. On May 7, 2014, Mr. Lyman posted on The Petroglyph a message about the May

10 protest ride. Mr. Lymans post announces the 9:00 a.m. meeting on May 10, 2014 at

Centennial Park and states that, at the meeting, information will be provided about which trails

people may legally ride. It also announces a social the night before the ride. Exhibit K.

14. On May 9, 2014, Fox 13 News interviewed Mr. Lyman and Mr. Wells. Mr.

Lyman is recorded as saying, among other things, BLM has been very adamant. They said,

Dont do it, or we will cite you with criminal and civil penalties. I dont like that. Mr. Wells

stated, Sometimes people have to stand up and say, This is what we want. This is the way it

should be. Exhibit L (video provided in discovery and can be played at any hearing).

15. Also, prior to the May 10, 2014 protest ride, Mr. Lyman appeared on a radio

program called Inside the Outdoors. Mr. Lyman discussed the ride and its purposes. Bates No.

992 (provided in third production of discovery).



10/72

10

ARGUMENT

I.

THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT HEARSAY AND THUS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST

ALL DEFENDANTS INDEPENDENT OF FED.R.EVID. 801(d)(2)(E).

The above-referenced statements are admissible independent ofFed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)

because they are not hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement that aparty offers for the

truth of the matter asserted in the statement. Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). The role of the hearsay rule

(and the related component of the right to confrontation) is to protect against statements that

cannot be challenged by cross-examining the speaker. Cross-examination can expose problems

with the speakers perception, memory, or truthfulness. United States v. Cesareo-Ayala, 576

F.3d 1120,1129 (10th Cir. 2009). However, when perception, memory, and truthfulness [are]

irrelevant to the purpose for which the government offers out-of-court statements, then the

statements are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Id. Consequently,

Coconspirator statements are sometimes hearsay and sometimes not. . . . . If threepersons are prosecuted for conspiracy, the conversation in which they plan the

venture and agree to participate is not hearsay, and the words spoken by each maybe proved against all, but a later statement by one of them admitting his

involvement would be hearsay if offered against the others to prove that point.

United States v. Faulkner, 439 F.3d 1221,1226-27 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotingChristopher B.

Mueller, The Federal Coconspirator Exception: Action, Assertion, and Hearsay, 12 HOFSTRA

L.REV. 323,326 (1984)). Additionally, statements that amount to verbal acts and verbal parts

of an act are not hearsay and, therefore, can be used against coconspirators regardless of

Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Id.at 1226(quoting Fed.R.Evid. 801 Advisory Committee Notes).

Verbal acts include a conspirator directing the conduct of other conspirators or a conspirator

agreeing to follow directions. Id.;Cesareo-Ayala, 576 F.3d at 1130(discussing why evidence

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2008608028&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2008608028&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2008608028&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2008608028&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2008608028&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2008608028&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2008608028&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2008608028&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2019590096&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2019590096&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=F


11/72

11

that a person being interviewed by police received ten phone calls seeking heroin during the

interview was not hearsay because calls show inference that person was dealing heroin, not for

truth of matters in ten phone calls). Verbal acts also include statements introduced for their

effect on the listener. United States v. Lambinus, 747 F.2d 592,597 (10th Cir. 1984) (holding that

detectives testimony of how his partner offered to sell the defendant food stamps was not hearsay

because the partners statement was offered for its effect on [the defendant] and his knowledge of

the illegality of the food stamp transactions).

Given that verbal acts and other statements not submitted for their literal truth are not

hearsay and, therefore, are admissible against all coconspirators independent ofFed.R.Evid.

801(d)(2)(E),courts should first address whether the statement is hearsay at all before looking to

whether it meets the requirements ofFed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Faulkner, 439 F.3d at 1226;12

Hofstra L.Rev. at 341n.78 (1984) (Where a coconspirator statement has only non-hearsay

significance in a case, resort to the coconspirator exception ofFed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)is

unnecessary. Courts frequently resort to it anyway. This habit simply confuses matters.). As

shown below, the statements above are not hearsay, which makes analysis underFed.R.Evid.

801(d)(2)(E)unnecessary.

First, Declarant Statements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 15 above are not hearsay

because they are verbal acts. Specifically, the verbal acts in these statements are invitations to

join the protest ride. Invitations to participate in the protest ride are quintessential verbal acts and,

therefore, are not hearsay. See, e.g.,United States v. Montana, 199 F.3d 947,950 (7th Cir. 1999)

(stating that performative utterances suchas a promise, offer, or demand . . . are not within the

https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I9a4d7265945811d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=747+f2d+592https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I9a4d7265945811d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=747+f2d+592https://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I9a4d7265945811d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=747+f2d+592http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2008608028&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2008608028&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2008608028&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2008608028&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2008608028&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2008608028&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999279839&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1999279839&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999279839&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1999279839&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999279839&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1999279839&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999279839&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1999279839&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1999279839&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1999279839&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0001160&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=0101301317&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=0101301317&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2008608028&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2008608028&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttps://a.next.westlaw.com/Document/I9a4d7265945811d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Default)&userEnteredCitation=747+f2d+592


12/72

12

scope of the hearsay rule because they do not make any truth claims). Additionally, any

statements in these documents describing the reasons for the ride are not submitted for the truth of

the matter asserted but merely provide context for the invitation to engage in illegal activity.

United States v. Barone, 913 F.2d 46,49 (2d Cir. 1990) (holding that statements from an informant

that did not testify at trial are not hearsay because they provided context to accuseds recorded

statements, not for truth of the matter asserted in statements). Therefore, Declarant Statements in

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 15 are not hearsay and are admissible against all coconspirators.

Second, Declarant Statements 6 and 14 are not hearsay because they are not submitted for

the truth of the matter asserted but only to show that Mr. Lyman and Mr. Wells were members of

the conspiracy. Whether Mr. Lyman was actually the ringleader of the protest ride is quite

irrelevant. Declarant Statement No. 6. Instead, the purpose of introducing Mr. Lymans

statement is to show his acknowledgment that a group exists who will ride motorized vehicles

through an area that is closed to such activity and that he is part of that group. Likewise, Mr.

Wells statement, in Declarant Statement 14, is not submitted to for the literal truth of the matter

asserted, but to acknowledge a conspiracy and his participation in it. Thus, neither Declarant

Statements 6 and 14 is hearsay and, therefore, both are admissible against all coconspirators.

Third, Declarant Statements 10 and 14 are not offered to prove the truth of the matters

asserted therein, and, therefore, are not hearsay. Whether BLM would actually seek civil and

criminal penalties sanctions against those who rode motorized vehicles through the closed

Recapture Canyon is not the purpose for introducing the statements. Instead, Mr. Lymans

statements acknowledge that those involved in motorized use through Recapture Canyon were

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990129032&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990129032&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990129032&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990129032&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990129032&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990129032&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990129032&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990129032&HistoryType=F


13/72

13

fully aware that their activity was unlawful. Such statements do not implicate the declarants

memory, perception, or truthfulness; they show their knowledge of the unlawfulness of their

activity. Thus, these statements are not hearsay and are admissible against all coconspirators.

II.

IN ANY EVENT, FED.R.EVID. 801(d)(2)(E) ALLOWS THE ADMISSION OF ALL

DECLARANT STATEMENTS AGAINST ALL COCONSPIRATORS.

Even if the Declarant Statements are hearsay, they are still admissible against all

coconspirators underFed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Rule 801(d)(2)(E) provides that a statement

made by the partys coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy is not hearsay and

is admissible against all coconspirators. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). To meet these foundational

elements to admit such statements, the Tenth Circuit requires the United States to prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that: (A) a conspiracy existed,(B) the declarant and the

defendant were both members of the conspiracy,and (C) the statements were made in the course

of an in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Patterson, 713 F.3d 1237,1245 (10th

Cir. 2013). As shown in order below, the United States meets each element.1

A. A Conspiracy Existed to Ride Motorized Vehicles Into Recapture Canyon.

A conspiracy existed to ride motorized vehicles through Recapture Canyon, which BLM

had closed to recreational motorized use. To prove a conspiracy, the United States must show:

(1) there was an agreement to violate the law; (2) the defendant knew the essential objective of the

1 Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)does provide defendants with the equivalent of a motion for summaryjudgment on a conspiracy charge. United States v. Smith, 46 F.3d 1223,1235 (1st Cir. 1995)

(holding that rulings underFed.R.Evid 801(d)(2)(E)are not findings on whether the evidence is

sufficient for a count to go to the jury). Instead, if the foundational elements of Rule801(d)(2)(E) are not met, then the statements are not admissible against all coconspirators, but

they are admissible against the conspirator who made the statement under other hearsay rules.

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2030308535&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2030308535&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2030308535&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2030308535&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2030308535&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2030308535&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1995043691&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1995043691&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1995043691&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1995043691&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1995043691&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1995043691&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=1st+Cir.+1995&ft=Y&db=1000901&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=1st+Cir.+1995&ft=Y&db=1000901&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=1st+Cir.+1995&ft=Y&db=1000901&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=1st+Cir.+1995&ft=Y&db=1000901&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1995043691&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1995043691&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2030308535&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2030308535&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=F


14/72

14

conspiracy; (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy; (4) an

overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (5) the coconspirators were

interdependent. Bedford, 536 F.3d at 1156. As shown in order below, the United States meets

each element here.

1. An agreement existed to illegally ride motorized recreational vehicles into

Recapture Canyon.

An agreement existed to ride motorized recreational vehicles into Recapture Canyon,

which BLM had closed to such use. In proving the existence of an agreement to violate the law,

the United States does not have to prove that an express or formal agreement was made; it merely

has to show the coconspirators tacitly came to a mutual understanding. United States v. Suntar

Roofing, Inc., 897 F.2d 469,474 (10th Cir. 1990). The government may also show the existence

of an agreement based on frequent contacts among the defendants and joint actions. United States

v. Sells, 477 F.3d 1226,1236 (10th Cir. 2007).

The evidence in this case shows far more than a tacit, mutual understanding to break the

law. Mr. Lyman, as a San Juan County Commissioner, convened a meeting at which he and

approximately 150 constituents attended, including Mr. Wells. Statement of Fact I:4. At the

meeting, people complained about BLMs management and decided to ride motorized vehicles up

Recapture Canyon on May 8, 2014. Statement of Fact I:5, 6. Those who decided to ride knew it

was unlawfulbecause BLMs closure of Recapture Canyon was discussed at the meeting.

Statement of Fact I:5. Mr. Lyman himself changed the date to May 10, 2014. Statement of Fact

I:7. Thus, an agreement clearly existed to unlawfully ride recreational motorized vehicles in an

area closed to such use.

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2016737431&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2016737431&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2016737431&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2016737431&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2016737431&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2016737431&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990041977&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990041977&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990041977&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990041977&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990041977&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990041977&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990041977&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990041977&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011568447&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011568447&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011568447&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011568447&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011568447&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011568447&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011568447&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011568447&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011568447&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011568447&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011568447&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011568447&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990041977&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990041977&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1990041977&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1990041977&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2016737431&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2016737431&HistoryType=F


15/72

15

2. Defendants knew of the conspiracys essential objective.

Each defendant was aware of the conspiracys objective to ride motorized vehicles into

Recapture Canyon and voluntarily participated to bring about that objective. [O]nce a

conspiracy is established, only slight evidence is required to connect a co-conspirator. United

States v. Andrews, 585 F.2d 961,964 (10th Cir. 1978). Each participant who may join the

conspiracy at any time during its existence need not necessarily know all the details or all the other

partieshe need only be aware of the schemes general scope. United States v. Dickey, 736

F.2d 571,583 (10th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, a party may join an ongoing conspiracy during its

progress and become criminally liable for all acts done in furtherance of the scheme. Andrews,

585 F.2d at 964. More than slight evidenceexists to connect Defendants to the conspiracy here.

Messrs. Lyman and Wells were well aware of the conspiracys objective because each

attended the February 27, 2014 meeting where the decision was made to illegally ride. Statement

of Fact I:4-5. Further, Messrs. Lyman and Wells had a lengthy, recorded discussion on April 28,

2014 about Recapture Canyon, the protest ride, its purpose, and the potential consequences for

doing it. Statement of Fact II:10-11. Both Messrs. Lyman and Wells publicized the protest ride

and its purpose in their respective internet forums. Statement of Fact Nos. II:2, 5-9. Also, both

made statements about the ride to the media. Declarant Statements Nos.14-15. Thus, Messrs.

Lyman and Wells were well aware of the conspiracys objective.

Messrs. Marian and Holliday were likewise aware of the conspiracys objective. Both

were seen at a pre-ride rally on May 10, 2014 standing behind people holding signs that protested

federal authority. Statement of Facts II:13. The pre-ride rally discussed the purposes and

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1984126208&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1984126208&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1984126208&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1984126208&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1984126208&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1984126208&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1984126208&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1984126208&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1984126208&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1984126208&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1984126208&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1984126208&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1978120740&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1978120740&HistoryType=F


16/72

16

objectives of the ride. Statement of Fact II:14. At the rally, Mr. Holliday was wearing a t-shirt

that said, Dont Tread on Me. Statement of Fact II:15. Later that day, both Messrs. Marian

and Holliday were seen riding together up the closed trial in Recapture Canyon along with several

others in the same clothes that they had on at the pre-ride rally. Statement of Fact II:15. Before

riding up Recapture Canyon, they had to pass a sign showing that the road was closed to

recreational motorized vehicles, and another sign showing where recreational vehicles were

legally able to ride. Statement of Fact IV:1. Thus, both Messrs. Holliday and Marian were

aware of the conspiracys objective.

3. Defendants knowingly participated in the conspiracy.

Defendantsactions show that they knowingly and voluntarily participated in the

conspiracy. A defendants knowing participation in a conspiracy may be established through

proof of surrounding circumstances, such as acts committed by the defendant which furthered the

scope of the conspiracy. United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349,1357 (11th Cir. 1983). Messrs.

Lyman, Wells, Marian, and Holliday all committed acts that show their knowing participation in

the conspiracy.

First, Mr. Lymans actions clearly show his knowing involvement in the conspiracy. Mr.

Lyman convened the meeting that led to the decision to have a protest ride up Recapture Canyon.

He publicized the ride, held pre-ride rallies on May 9, 2014 and May 10, 2014, rented an off-road

vehicle just for the ride, warned others of BLM enforcement, and drove up Recapture Canyon.

Clearly, he knowingly participated in the conspiracy.

Second, Mr. Wells also knowingly participated in the conspiracy. In addition to attending

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1983113768&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1983113768&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1983113768&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1983113768&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1983113768&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1983113768&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1983113768&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1983113768&HistoryType=F


17/72

17

the meeting that led to the decision to do the protest ride, he also helped publicize the ride through

his internet site. He interviewed Mr. Lyman and, therefore, was well aware about the ride, its

purpose, and its potential consequences. Knowing that an enforcement action was possible for

deciding to ride up the closed canyon, Mr. Wells chose to wear a gun strapped to his leg while

riding up the closed road. Indeed, it is difficult to think of a more definite sign of voluntary

participation in an illegal activity than wearing a gun while breaking the law knowing that BLM

may take an enforcement action. Mr. Wellsknowingly and willfully participated in the

conspiracy.

Third, Messrs. Marian and Holliday also knowingly and voluntarily participated in the

conspiracy. They attended the pre-ride rally, which strongly infers that he knew what the ride was

about, rode past obvious closure signs, and rode up Recapture Canyon with others. Further, Mr.

Hollidays decision to wear his Dont Tread on Met-shirt is indicative of his knowledge of the

rides purpose. Therefore, Defendants knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy.

4. Defendants committed an overt act.

Numerous overt acts exist in this conspiracy. To establish an overt act, the United States

must show that at least one coconspirator made a statement or performed an act, legal or illegal,

that furthered the objective of the conspiracy. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49,53

(1942). [A]n individual conspirator need not participate in the overt act in furtherance of the

conspiracy. Once a conspiracy is established, and an individual is linked to that conspiracy, an

overt act committed by any conspirator is sufficient. United States v. Thomas, 8 F.3d 1552,1560

n.21 (11th Cir. 1993).

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000780&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1942117912&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1942117912&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000780&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1942117912&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1942117912&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000780&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1942117912&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1942117912&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1993222750&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1993222750&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1993222750&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1993222750&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1993222750&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1993222750&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1993222750&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1993222750&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000780&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1942117912&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1942117912&HistoryType=F


18/72

18

Overt acts are not in short supply in this action. The object of the conspiracy was to ride

motorized vehicles in Recapture Canyon to protest BLM management. Because this ride was

intended to send a message of protest to BLM, Mr. Lymans internet postings, newspaper article,

and radio interviews to publicize the ride so that more protesters would come constitute overt acts

to accomplish the ride. Similarly, Mr. Wellsadvertisements regarding the illegal ride also

constitute an overt act. Additionally, all Defendants rode their motorized vehicles into the closed

portion of Recapture Canyon, which furthered the object of the conspiracy, and constitute overt

acts. Therefore, the overt act element is easily met.

5. The coconspirators were interdependent.

The coconspirators were interdependent because they relied on each other to accomplish

the conspiratorial goal. Interdependenceis proven when coconspirators intend to act together

for their shared mutual benefit within the scope of the conspiracy charged. United States v.

Caldwell, 589 F.3d 1323,1329 (10th Cir. 2009) (citations, quotations, and alterations omitted).

Circumstantial evidence alone can prove interdependence. Id. Further, a single act can be

sufficient to demonstrate interdependence. Id.

Mr. Lyman provided the opportunity to engage in the illegal ride up Recapture Canyon by

setting May 10, 2014 as the appointed day for the ride. He and Mr. Wells also publicized the ride

and let other coconspirators know that BLM may take action against them. Because of these

actions, Messrs. Wells, Holliday, and Marian, and many others, availed themselves of the

opportunity to illegally ride Recapture Canyon, which helped Mr. Lyman and others express their

dissatisfaction with BLM. Thus, the coconspirators were interdependent.

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2020901811&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2020901811&HistoryType=F


19/72

19

B. The Declarant and Defendants Were All Part of the Conspiracy.

All of the statements that the United States seeks to have admitted underFed.R.Evid.

801(d)(2)(E)were made by Messrs. Lyman and Wells, who, as shown above, are members of the

charged conspiracy. Likewise, as shown above, Messrs. Holliday and Marian are also members

of the conspiracy. Consequently, any of Mr. Lymans or Mr. Wellsstatements made in

furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible against all four coconspirators.

C. The Declarant Statements Were Made During and In Furtherance of the

Conspiracy.

The Declarant Statements above were made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)requires the United States to show that coconspirator statements were

made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The conspiracy began on or about February

27, 2014 when the town meeting yielded the illegal agreement to ride Recapture Canyon on May 8,

2014. Statement of Facts I:4-6. Because the date of the ride was later changed to May 10, 2014,

the conspiracy ended that day upon completion of the illegal ride. All of the Declarant Statements

in this motion were made between February 27, 2014 and before the illegal ride on May 10, 2014.

Thus, the only remaining issue is whether the statements furthered the conspiracy.

A statement is in made in furtherance of a conspiracy when it is intended to promote the

conspiratorial objectives. United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267,1273 (10th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotation omitted). The Tenth Circuit has found the following types of statements

promote conspiratorial objectives: (1) statements explaining events of importance to the

conspiracy,id.;(2) statements between coconspirators which provide reassurance, which serve to

maintain trust and cohesiveness among them, or which inform each other of the current status of

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=F


20/72

20

the conspiracy,United States v. Smith, 833 F.2d 213,219 (10th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation

omitted); (3) statements identifying a fellow coconspirator,Townley, 472 F.3d at 1273;and (4)

discussions of future intent that set transactions to the conspiracy in motion or that maintain the

flow of information among conspiracy members. United States v. Gutierrez, 48 F.3d 1134,1137

(10th Cir. 1995). As shown below, the Declarant Statements further conspiratorial objectives.

Declarant Statements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10,11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 further conspiratorial

objectives by advertising the illegal ride and warning of potential consequences. These calls to

illegal action explain events important to the conspiracy such as the ride itself, the time, place, and

what BLM may do about it. Indeed, getting the word out about the ride sets transaction of the

conspiracy in motion to get as many people out as possible to protest BLMs management of

public land. These internet postings, articles, meeting statements, and interviews, also helped

inform existing coconspirators of the status of the conspiracy and helped maintain trust between

them. Thus, these statements further the conspiracys objectives and are admissible against all

Defendants underFed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).

Likewise, Declarant Statement 6, in which Mr. Lyman identifies himself as the

ringleader,also furthered the objectives of the conspiracy. By designating himself as the

ringleader,he identified himself to others as a conspirator and made himself a resource to other

coconspirators who sought information about the illegal ride. Thus, Declarant Statement 6 is

admissible against all Defendants.

http://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1987138941&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1987138941&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1987138941&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1987138941&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1987138941&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1987138941&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1987138941&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1987138941&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1995033216&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1995033216&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1995033216&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1995033216&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1995033216&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1995033216&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=L&docname=USFRER801&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&fn=_top&findtype=L&vr=2.0&db=1000607&wbtoolsId=USFRER801&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1995033216&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1995033216&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000506&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=2011154810&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=2011154810&HistoryType=Fhttp://westlaw.com/find/default.wl?ft=Y&db=0000350&rs=btil2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&serialnum=1987138941&fn=_top&findtype=Y&vr=2.0&wbtoolsId=1987138941&HistoryType=F


21/72


22/72

CARLIE CHRISTENSEN, United States Attorney (#0633)JARED C. BENNETT, Assistant United States Attorney (#9097)

LAKE DISHMAN, Assistant United States Attorney (Provisionally admitted; Licensed in VA)

185 South State Street, #300Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Telephone: (801) 524-5682

[email protected]

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PHILLIP KAY LYMAN; MONTEJEROME WELLS; SHANE MORRIS,

MARIAN; and FRANKLIN TRENT

HOLLIDAY;

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14CR470RJS-BCW

EXHIBIT LIST

Honorable Robert J. Shelby

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

Exhibit A: Declaration of BLM Special Agent Michael Johnson.

Exhibit B: Email from Phillip Kay Lyman to Juan Palma, State Director of BLM, dated

March 2, 2014.

Exhibit C: Phillip Kay Lymans Facebook posting, dated March 2, 2014.

Exhibit D: Phillip Kay Lymans Op-Ed Article entitled My View: Community space

Recaptured, published April 11, 2014.

Case 2:14-cr-00470-TC-BCW Document 102-1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 1 of 2
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


23/72

2

Exhibit E: Phillip Kay Lymans Facebook posting, dated April 11, 2014.

Exhibit F: Phillip Kay Lymans Facebook posting, dated April 17, 2014.

Exhibit G: Partial transcript of audio recording of San Juan County Commission meeting

held April 21, 2014.

Exhibit H: Phillip Kay Lymans Facebook posting, dated April 27, 2014.

Exhibit I: Partial transcript of audio recording of San Juan County Commission meeting

held April 28, 2014.

Exhibit J: Letter from Phillip Kay Lyman to Lance Porter, District Manager of BLM, dated

April 29, 2014.

Exhibit K: The Petroglyph Facebook posting, dated May 7, 2014.

Exhibit L: Fox13 news article by Nineveh Dinha, Protesters ride ATVs through canyon

despite BLM ban, updated on May 10, 2014.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2015.

CARLIE CHRISTENSEN

United States Attorney

/s/ Jared C. Bennett

JARED BENNETTAssistant United States Attorney



24/72

EXHIBITA



25/72

CARLIE CHRISTENSEN, United States Attorney (#0633)JARED C. BENNETT, Assistant United States Attorney (#9097)

LAKE DISHMAN, Assistant United States Attorney (Provisionally admitted; Licensed in VA)

185 South State Street, #300Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Telephone: (801) 524-5682

[email protected]

Attorneys for the United States of America

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PHILLIP KAY LYMAN; MONTEJEROME WELLS; SHANE MORRIS

MARIAN; and FRANKLIN TRENT

HOLLIDAY;

Defendants.

Case No. 2:14CR470RJS-BCW

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL

JOHNSON

Honorable Robert J. Shelby

Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

I, Michael Johnson, under 28 U.S.C. 1746, declare the following:

1. I have been employed as a Special Agent for the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) from October 2012 to the present. BLM manages a wide variety of resources spread

over 245 million acres of public lands and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate. These

public land resources include timber, forage, energy and minerals, recreation, wild horse and burro

herds, fish and wildlife habitat, wilderness areas, and archaeological and paleontological sites.

BLM has been given specific resource protection and law enforcement responsibilities that relate

to its resource-management mission.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


26/72

2

2. As a BLM Special Agent, I have received specialized training regarding resource

protection on public lands in addition to several hours of law enforcement training.

3. Prior to serving as a BLM Special Agent, I served as a Special Agent for the United

States Secret Service from March 2004 to October 2012. As a Secret Service Special Agent, my

duties included investigations of: (1) counterfeiting United States currency; (2) identity theft; (3)

bank fraud; (4) check fraud; (5) telemarketing fraud; (6) computer fraud; and (7) forgery, among

others. Additionally, I was asked to provide protection to the President of the United States, the

Vice-President of the United States, former Presidents, visiting heads of state, presidential

candidates, members of Congress, and some family members of the foregoing.

4. Training to become a Secret Service Special Agent included, among other things,

three months of intense training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in addition to

three months of training at the Secret Service Criminal Investigator Training Program.

5. Prior to becoming a Secret Service Special Agent, I served as a Uniformed Secret

Service Officer from October 2001 to March 2004. I received three months of training at the

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in addition to three months of training at the Secret

Service Uniformed Division Training Program.

6. I hold a bachelors degree in Business Administration from the University of

Phoenix.

7. I am the case agent for BLM in the above-captioned action.

8. As such, I am familiar with the evidence that has been obtained during the

investigation and prosecution of this action.



27/72

3

9. On September 13, 2007, BLM closed Recapture Canyon to motorized off-road

vehicle use.

10. On May 10, 2014, Defendant Lyman and others held a rally prior to leading a group

of people on motorized off-road vehicles up Recapture Canyon.

11. The United States obtained video footage from the May 10, 2014 pre-ride rally.

12. Speakers at the pre-ride rally talked about why they were having the ride up

Recapture Canyon.

13. On the video, Defendants Shane Marian and Franklin Holliday are shown as

spectators at the pre-ride rally. Exhibit 1 (screen capture of the video).

14. Later that day, a BLM ranger was taking photos in the closed portion of Recapture

Canyon. Messrs. Marian and Holliday were photographed riding motorized off-road vehicles in

the closed area wearing the same clothing that they had on at the pre-ride rally. Exhibit 1 (pho

20150410 #102 motion in limine or in alternative proffer of conconspirator statements

Documents