Lyman, Wells convicted of conspiracy for Recapture Canyon protest

by David Boyle
After three days of trial and seven hours of deliberation, a 12-man jury returned guilty verdicts for two San Juan County men related to the May, 2014 Recapture Canyon protest ride. Two other residents were found not guilty.
San Juan County Commission Chairman Phil Lyman and Monticello City Council member Monte Wells were found guilty on two federal misdemeanor counts each.
Lyman and Wells face up to one year in prison and $100,000 in fines for each conviction. Sentencing is scheduled before Federal Judge Robert Shelby on July 15 at the federal courthouse in Salt Lake City.
Shane Marian and Trent Holliday, who were also charged, were found not guilty on all counts.
The four county residents were charged with conspiracy to ride All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) on closed public lands and for the actual ride on closed public lands. The charges were filed in the wake of a May 10, 2014 protest and ride in Recapture Canyon, east of Blanding.
Portions of the canyon were closed to motorized vehicles in 2007. The public land is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
During the protest, riders on approximately 100 ATVs rode about one mile past the closure boundary along a pipeline maintenance road. About 50 ATVs then traveled further into the canyon along a more primitive road.
The highly publicized May 10 ride was in protest of the “temporary” closure of motorized access in portions of the canyon. The closure has stretched on in subsequent years, despite efforts at resolution by San Juan County and local groups.
One witness at the trial, local resident Josh Ewing, told the jury, “If you were from San Juan County and you didn’t know about the protest ride, something was wrong with you.”
The U.S. Attorney opening statement is that the defendants “chose to cross the line. They conspired to break the law.”
The US called six witnesses to the stand and brought forth dozens of documents of evidence, including photographs, letters, social media postings and video clips.
Among those called to testify is Juan Palma, the former BLM state director. Palma testified of a lunch meeting with Lyman and Wells. He said the two parties attempted to reach an agreement, but it could not be done before the protest.
BLM District Manager Lance Porter testified that he delivered a letter from the BLM to Lyman.
“I strongly urge you to cancel the proposed ride in the closed portion of the canyon,” read Porter’s letter. “To the extent that you or anyone else uses a motorized vehicle within the closed areas, BLM will seek all appropriate civil and criminal penalties.”
Defense opening statements expressed frustration over the “temporary” closure of the trail through Recapture Canyon in 2007.
Over the subsequent seven years, the frustration grew year by year, with no apparent progress on resolving the closure. The defense further argued the defendants had a right to be in the canyon.
The only defense witness to take the stand said he gave Lyman permission to drive on the pipeline maintenance road. Ferd Johnson is the sole employee of the San Juan County Water Conservancy District. In 1986, the Water Conservancy District was granted a right-of-way from the BLM to maintain the pipeline in Recapture Canyon.
Johnson testified that Lyman asked for permission to use the right-of-way for the protest, which Johnson granted.
“Ferd Johnson is the salt of the earth, an honest, hard working man,” said Lyman’s attorney. “Ferd Johnson opened the gate to Recapture Canyon, literally and figuratively.”
The defense argued that the men had “good faith” reason to believe the trail was open for them on the day of the protest.
The good faith argument used by the defense is that they did not need to prove the actions were legal or that they didn’t occur, but that they had reason to believe their actions were legal at the time of the alleged crime.
Evidence presented by the prosecution was primarily focused on the actions of Lyman and Wells. In addition, the prosecution had photographs of Holliday and Marian at the pre-ride rally and riding ATV’s in the canyon.
BLM employee Brian Loftin conducted more than one month of research on the internet to gather evidence. He was asked, “In any of your research, did the name Shane Marian come up?”
Loftin answered, “No.”
The only additional evidence against Holliday was Facebook “likes” of Lyman and Wells’ posts.
Holliday’s attorney asked Loftin in cross examination, “Isn’t it possible that Mr. Holliday, in addition to liking the three mentioned posts on Phil Lyman’s page, could have liked environmental group Facebook pages, cat videos and other number of posts?”
The defense argued that Wells attended a lunch meeting with Lyman and Palma, republished Lyman’s letters, and took photographs of the event as a journalist.
The jury deliberated for seven hours before delivering the verdicts on Friday evening.
Lyman expressed frustration at the verdict, stating that he thought the defense established that the group had a right to be in the canyon.
“We have a right of way, and I think that was shown,” he said. “The protest was called off in the canyon. It stayed on the right of way. Somehow because of the media, because of all the hype that was on it, it was blown into something that it simply was not.”
The BLM issued a statement afterward saying, “Today’s verdict underscores the importance of protecting the nation’s irreplaceable archaeological treasures. These ancient dwellings and artifacts are essential for understanding the story of the earliest inhabitants of the American Southwest.
“As Congress has directed, the BLM will continue to protect these resources while managing the public lands for multiple-use and sustained yield on behalf of all Americans.”