Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1370

Filed 09/29/16

Page 1 of 3

Tiffany A. Harris OSB 02318

Attorney at Law

333 SW Taylor St., Suite 300

Portland, Oregon 97204
Tel: (503) 782-4788
tiff@harrisdefense.com
Standby Counsel for Shawna Cox

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

3:16-CR-00051-BR-7
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL ON COUNT 2

SHAWNA COX.
Defendant.

Pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Ms. Cox moves the
Court for a Judgment of Acquittal on Count 2 of the indictment. A motion for judgment of
acquittal is properly granted when, viewing the evidence in the in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, a rational trier of fact could not find the essential elements of the indicted charge
beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); see also United
States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Count 2 of the indictment charges Ms. Cox with unlawful possession of a dangerous
weapon in a federal facility under 18 U.S.C. 930(b). In order to sustain a conviction under that
statute, the Government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Ms. Cox knowingly
possessed or caused to be present, a dangerous weapon in a federal facility, and that she acted
with the intent that it be used in the commission of count 1 (Conspiring to Impede Officers of the
USDC Oregon Case 3:16-CR-00051-BR
Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Count 2

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1370

Filed 09/29/16

Page 2 of 3

United States). A federal facility is not a truck on a highway or a car parked in the rural
outdoors. A federal facility is defined as a building or part of a building, owned or leased by
the federal government, where federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of
performing their official duties. (Courts Preliminary Jury Instructions).
There is no evidence in the record that Ms. Cox possessed a dangerous weapon in a
federal facility. All of the evidence adduced at trial is to the contrary. For example, no
eyewitness testified to seeing Ms. Cox possess a firearm or other weapon in a federal facility.
The evidence in the record is to the contrary. FBI agents Ronnie Walker and Claudia Bonilla
(who examined the data responsive to the warrant for Ms. Coxs Facebook account) both
testified that they had never seen any photographic, video, or other evidence indicating that Ms.
Cox was ever in possession of a firearm or other weapon in a federal facility.
Nor would the record permit a rational trier of fact to convict Ms. Cox under an aid and
abet theory. While there was evidence that persons alleged to be co-conspirators produced a
videotaped call to arms, there was no evidence that Ms. Cox was involved or that she ever
appealed to others to bring weapons to the refuge. More specifically, the government has not
met its burden to show that Ms. Cox aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured
another person who, himself or herself, committed a knowing violation of 18 U.S.C. 930(b).
The evidence shows that Ms. Cox accepted a ride from LaVoy Finicum and was a
passenger in the backseat of his truck on January 26, 2016, the day Ms. Cox, and the other
occupants of the truck (and cars following them) were arrested on Highway 395, miles from the
refuge headquarters and any federal facility. There is no evidence that firearms later found in the
truck were ever possessed in a federal facility or that Ms. Cox played any part in bringing them
there. Even even if the jury believed that those firearms were visible to Ms. Cox when she
accepted a ride from Mr. Finicum (a claim Ms. Cox disputes), her mere presence in the truck
(which is not a federal facility) does not constitute aiding and abetting.

USDC Oregon Case 3:16-CR-00051-BR

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Count 2

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1370

Filed 09/29/16

Page 3 of 3

Additionally, the presence of legal ammunition, still in it a single, sealed and unopened
package, in Ms. Coxs van, three weeks after her arrest, does not permit a reasonable inference
that Ms. Cox possessed it with an intent to hand it out to others or to facilitate their possession of
dangerous weapons in a federal facility. If that is the governments theory of aiding and
abetting, it relies on speculation and inferences stacked upon inferences to produce permissible
and sufficient evidence for a conviction. Therefore, the Court should grant the Motion for
Judgment of Acquittal.

Respectfully submitted,
/S/
Tiffany Harris
Tiffany A. Harris
Standby Counsel for Defendant Shawna Cox
Reviewed and approved by
/S/
Shawna Cox
Shawna Cox
Pro Se Defendant

USDC Oregon Case 3:16-CR-00051-BR

Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Count 2