SUMMARY OF THE APPELLEE’S MAIN POINTS
* Four months after conviction the government asked for an in camera review of an FBI report concerning government witness Batts.
* The government wanted a ruling that they had not violated the Reeses’ constitutional rights.
* The government didn’t want a hearing on the matter.
* The government alleged Batts’ testimony was limited.
* The government claimed the AUSAs were unaware of anything that would affect Batts’ credibility.
* The government claimed the information on Batts only came to their attention after the trial ended.
* The government claimed the information was inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence
* “The district court (Judge Brack) was unpersuaded.”
*During hearings, the court learned the AUSA management team knew before trial there were potential Giglio issues with Batts.
* Warnings two months before trial were unheeded.
*“[T]he most valuable evidence to impeach Batts was not his (alleged) criminal conduct disclosed in the withheld reports….[r]ather, the court learned that Batts had called an FBI agent on May 5, 2008, to report the criminal activities of a fellow deputy – with the telling caveat that he, Batts, was ‘not involved.’ Because of this, the district court found that ‘it may be inferred that [Batts] knew about the FBI investigation and he had a motive to curry favor with the Government by embellishing his trial testimony… When confronted… Batts claimed it never happened.’”
* Judge Brack pointed out that motivation and bias are proper subjects for cross-examination, and ruled the suppression of the FBI report violated the Reese’s Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness.
* The district court (Judge Brack) found the government suppressed evidence, the evidence was favorable and the evidence was material.
* The government claims the suppressed evidence was neither favorable nor material.
* The appellee’s attorney proceeded to explain to the court why the Government is mistaken.
* Batts’ testimony concerning Terri’s knowledge about the guns being recovered in Mexico contradicted Terri’s testimony and impugned her credibility.
* The prosecution told the jury to believe Batts.
* The prosecution could not have used that tactic if the defense had been able to confront Batts with the FBI report.
* The disputed testimony triggered the investigation and prosecution.
* The disputed testimony was used to prove the Reeses had knowledge – a key element in the four counts of which they were convicted.
* Batts testimony completed the link of knowledge between straw purchases and smuggling.
“Clearly, the Government’s actions to suppress the evidence in this case have resulted in a verdict unworthy of confidence. The district court correctly applied the three-part Giglio standard to the evidence in this case, and his decision to grant a new trial was within his sound discretion.”
The appellees’ seek to have the Appeals Court affirm (uphold) the district court’s order granting a new trial.
Continued in Part 4
DID THE GOVERNMENT SUPRESS FAVORABLE AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE?
The appellees’ brief pointed to a number of items to show support for Judge’s Brack’s determination that the government suppressed potential Giglio evidence.
- The government waited nearly four months before informing the court about a potential Giglio problem with Luna County Sheriff Deputy Alan Batts.
- The government attempt to persuade Judge Brack to rule they had not violed the Reese’s constitutional rights on the matter without having a hearing.
- Judge Brack’s order noted that the government’s motion lacked any explanation on how they failed to discover the information on Batts before trial or why they waited so long to disclose it.
- The government’s Ex Parte motion did not disclose the US Attorney’s office was aware prior to indicting the Reeses that AUSA Williams had warned the AUSA management team supervising the Reese prosecution about the Giglio issues involving Deputy Batts.
- The government’s Ex Parte motion did not reveal to Judge Brack that the US Attorney’s ethics officer, trial and supervisory counsel, and investigative agency counsel had discussed the Giglio problem, and had agreed to informed the court only that prior to Batts’ testifying that the two AUSAs trying the Reese case did not know of any potential Giglio problems.
Herbert Titus also pointed out:
“Apparently, the standard procedure in this U.S. Attorney’s office limited its Giglio inquiry to the government agency with which the witness is employed… thus allowing trial counsel to avoid obtaining such knowledge from other law enforcement agencies.”
(Note: During courtroom testimony, it was made clear that the employer (Luna County Sheriff’s Office, and/or the sheriff) would not have known about a corruption investigation being conducted of one of its officers in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation.)
The appellee’s brief continued with additional information regarding suppression of potential impeachment evidence:
- The government’s Ex Parte motion did not reveal that the FBI had expressed concern to AUSA Williams about Batts being on a drug task force, and that Williams had informed the AUSA management team via email.
- The only reason any of this came to light was because Judge Brack demanded an “explanation as to how the trial prosecutors failed to discover the information before trial” and that only then was the court given the details of the concealment. The impeachment material had been in the US Attorney’s office for several years and that Judge Brack had asked why Ms. Armijo, one of the prosecutors, did not know about the impeachment material “in light of the fact that she had been ‘the branch chief down here.’”
The appellee’s brief pointed out that during the January 2013 hearing:
- AUSA Williams reviewed the prosecution memo before the Reese indictment and confirmed that Batts’ name was on it.
- AUSA Williams verified before the indictment he identified potential Giglio issues with Batts and notified the management team in Las Cruces (AUSAs Castellano & Perez).
- Before trial, Williams sent the management team an email about the FBI’s concern about Batts, but doesn’t know if they read the potential Giglio material.
The appellee’s brief also revealed that:
- Judge Brack confirmed that AUSA Williams had warned AUSAs Castellano, Perez and others about Batts’ potential Giglio problems and had noted they needed to consider his presence on the drug task force.
- The Las Cruces AUSA’s office failed to disclose information about another officer who was subject of the same investigation as Batts. That failure to disclose also resulted in the court granting that defendant a new trial.
- In July 2012, AUSA Williams attempted two more times to get Batts off the drug task force, but “the Government called Deputy Batts to testify on its behalf at (the Reese) trial.”
The appellees’ brief also claimed that the government has misstated the Giglio claim because the government claimed in their opening brief:
“…there has been no determination that Batts engaged in any misconduct, let alone any misconduct that involved untruthfulness.” (Emphasis added.)
The appellees state the government completely omitted mentioning the telephone conversation between Deputy Batts and FBI Agent Garry Brotan that was memorialized in a FBI report at the time of the call.
The appellees explain it was that phone call that was “identified as the crucial event from which an actual Giglio claim would emerge.” That call is what led to defense counsel to inform Judge Brack in December 2012 that the information was not simply character evidence, but that Batts was a key witness and had “motive and bias to lie in favor of the government.”
Appellees informed the appeals court of testimony omitted from the government’s opening brief that,
“Right after the phone call”,… FBI Special Agent Acosta testified that the ‘FBI collectively’ formed the opinion that Batts had been ‘tipped…off’… ‘that the FBI was looking at him and some other officers.’”
In an effort to point out that there is potentially misconduct involving untruthfulness, the appellees directed the appeals court to look at Batts’ sworn testimony in January 2013 where he testified:
“I never called Garry Brotan.”
The appellees state the government attempted to marginalize Batts as a witness and “omitted…any meaningful description or analysis of the substance of Batts’ testimony.”
The appellees claim the government “glossed over the August 2010 meeting” between Terry and Deputy Batts and “avoids discussing what happened at New Deal, which is what triggered the entire undercover investigation.
The appellees further the “Government belittled Batts’ testimony as ‘not crucial to the prosecution’s case’”. However, the government’s closing arguments at trial told a different story as they referred to the discrepancy between Batts’ and Terri’s testimony numerous times, telling the jury to decide who was truthful. The government claimed Terri’s alleged knowledge that the weapon had been recovered in Mexico proved they had knowledge.
Continued in Part 3
WHAT IS THE ISSUE IN THE APPEALS CASE?
As explained in the previous post, the government is appealing Judge Brack’s order granting a new trial for Rick, Terri and Ryin Reese. The government asked the appeals court to review the following issue:
“Did the district court (i.e. Judge Robert C. Brack) err in granting a new trial based on the government’s failure to disclose potential impeachment evidence relating to a minor trial witness when the evidence was neither favorable to the defendants nor material?”
The attorney of record for Rick, Terri and Ryin (“the appellees”) is Herbert W. Titus (Vienna, VA) who has been hired by Michael Connelly of the U.S. Justice Foundation, and Robert Gorence and Jason Bowles.
Mr. Titus’ brief immediately clarified the issue that has been presented for review:
“The issue presented is whether, based on the whole record, the district court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ motion for a new trial because the Government had ‘intentionally or negligently’ suppressed favorable and material impeachment evidence, in violation of defendants’ Fifth Amendment Due Process right and Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, as those guarantees have been applied in Giglio v. United States… and related cases.”
Judge Brack had cited the Supreme Court cases of Giglio, Brady, and a number of other of related legal cases supporting his decision to grant a new trial. Judge Brack’s memorandum order detailed his reasoning behind granting the Reeses a new trial based on each of the three key issues that must be met to grant a new trial:
- Did the government suppress evidence?
- Was that evidence favorable to the defense?
- Was the evidence material to the case?
The government had argued in their brief that, while some of the supervisors in the Las Cruces US Attorney’s office knew about potential impeachment material involving Deputy Alan Batts, the impeachment material wasn’t favorable or material to the defense and would not have affected the outcome of the case.
Mr. Titus briefly outlined the main events in the case in chronological order, starting with the date of their arrests though trial and the verdicts. The events and hearings leading to Judge Brack’s Memorandum Order granting a new trial were also listed.
The appellee’s brief noted that what was really at issue in the December 2012 and January 2013 hearings was whether or not Deputy Batts knew “[of the FBI investigation of his activities,] (because) then he has a motive to temper his testimony to please the government…”
The appellee’s brief asserted the government’s statement of facts in their brief “is flawed.”
- “In its Statement of Facts, the Government spends 28 of 36 pages rehearsing its version of what transpired between August 30, 2010, the date the investigation began….and August 1, 2012, the date of the jury verdict.”… “The Government account of the testimony at trial reads as if the Reeses had been convicted on all counts, and were appealing their conviction.” … “In their account, the Government implies that there was more than sufficient evidence to establish each crime as charged.” (Emphasis added.)
The appellee’s brief further pointed out that the “Government’s account of the six undercover stings leaves the reader with the distinct impression that all of the testimony recounted therein led to the same result – guilty as charged.”
Referring to the 28 of 36 pages of the Government’s brief , which detailed the investigation into the Reeses and New Deal, trial testimony and the verdict, the appellee’s brief points out:
“The Reeses are not on retrial here. And the issue is not whether the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions of Rick, Terri, and Ryin. …”
The brief clarified what issue is actually before the appeals court:
“[T]he issue is whether the district court erred by granting the defense motion for a new trial based upon the Government suppression of favorable and material Giglio impeachment materials.” (Emphasis added.)
Continued in part 2
In August 2012, Rick, Terri and Ryin Reese were found guilty of four of thirty counts relating to falsifying paperwork relating to straw purchases and gun smuggling charges.
Nearly four months after the guilty verdicts, but before sentencing, the government revealed to Judge Robert C. Brack information that had been withheld during trial.
As a result, in December 2012, a hearing was held to obtain Rick & Ryin’s release from jail. During that hearing, the government claimed the defense attorneys were making a big to do about nothing. “Nothing” referred to the government withholding evidence about prosecution witness Deputy Batts, who testified against the Reeses during trial.
During the January 2013 Motion for New Trial, the government also claimed that Deputy Batts was only a “minor witness”, and that the impeachment evidence was not favorable or material. Judge Brack disagreed and granted the Reeses a new trial.
Approximately two and a half months after the government filed their appeal of Judge Brack’s decision to grant Rick, Terri and Ryin Reese a new trial, the government filed their 76 page opening brief on June 6, 2013, which included a copy of Judge Brack’s scathing Memorandum Opinion granting a new trial.
The government’s brief stated the government wants the appeals court to review the following issue:
“Did the district court (i.e. Judge Robert C. Brack) err in granting a new trial based on the government’s failure to disclose potential impeachment evidence relating to a minor trial witness when the evidence was neither favorable to the defendants nor material?”
All of the original charges were listed as were the judgments for each (guilty, acquitted, dismissed).
The brief explained that on November 21, 2012 they had “filed a sealed ex parte motion for in camera review” (meaning the prosecution didn’t want to provide a copy of the motion to the defense, and wanted the judge to rule on it without the defense knowing about the motion or the information it concerned).
The brief stated the trial prosecutors did not know Deputy Batts had been the subject of an FBI investigation, however, admitted some of the supervisors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office did know. The brief explained the government believed the information did not have to be given to the defense and that it would have been inadmissible in the original court case. The brief pointed out Judge Brack ruled against the government and ordered the government to disclose the information about Deputy Batts to the Reese defense team.
The brief rehashed the main points of the December hearing and pointed out that even Judge Brack had made a comment during the December 2012 hearing regarding Deputy Batts’ credibility. Near the end of the December hearing, Judge Brack made the following comment regarding the odds of obtaining a new trial when he stated to the defense,
“I have reviewed the testimony that is at issue. Credibility didn’t seem to be a significant issue there. So if it’s just credibility… as the government has suggested, you’ve got an uphill battle.”
Later, during the January evidentiary hearing concerning the defendants’ motion for a new trial on the four counts of conviction, the brief explained the government opposed the motion contending the impeachment material was neither material nor admissible. However, Judge Brack granted the defendant’s motion for the new trial based on his view that,
“[the U.S.] had committed a Giglio violation by failing to produce the investigative materials relating to Deputy Batts before trial.” (emphasis added)
The brief reviewed and detailed a significant amount of the government’s case against the Reeses including the events that led up to the initiation of the investigation and subsequent arrests of one of Jose Roman’s straw purchasers, Penny Torres, cartel member Jose Roman and his wife, and eventually the sting operations against the Reeses.
The brief also recapped some of the defense trial testimony of Rick and Terri that supported the government’s position that the Reeses are guilty.
The brief summarized by pointing out that,
“[t]o obtain a new trial, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosecution suppressed the evidence, that the evidence was favorable to the defendant, and that the evidence was material.”
The government claimed the potential impeachment material was neither favorable nor material therefore the district court (Judge Brack) erred in granting a new trial.
To support the above, the government brief explained that the (impeachment) “evidence was not favorable because Deputy Batts’ testimony supported the defendants’ theory of the case…” and that his testimony only differed from Terri on only a single point” (regarding whether Terri told Batts that the gun was recovered in Mexico). The government claimed, “Deputy Batts’ testimony was otherwise entirely favorable to the defense. Impeaching Deputy Batts would not have helped the defense.” The government further claimed that,
“[t]he defendants cannot show that the potential impeachment evidence concerning Deputy Batts was reasonably likely to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine this Court’s confidence in the jury’s verdict.”
The brief continued with their argument of why the District Court (Judge Brack) erred in granting the Reeses a new trial. The government asserted that there is no reason to believe that if Deputy Batts’ testimony was impeached that the jury would have found them not guilty. The government’s main points that were argued to explain why they believe Judge Brack erred in granting a new trial were:
- The information relating to Deputy Batts was only marginally favorable to the defense
- Judge Brack incorrectly found that only government agents participated in the undercover stings that resulted in conviction
- Deputy Batts’ testimony was not important to the Government’s case
- The Prosecution did not focus on the Batts’ lack of motivation to lie during closing arguments
- The defense had no motive to impeach Deputy Batts
- The impeachment evidence was not favorable because it was not admissible
- The information was not material
The brief explained that
“… the record does not support the district court’s view. Inexplicably, the district court granted all three defendants a new trial.”
The brief also noted, “… the government presented strong evidence on the false statements counts. That evidence included (a) audio and video recordings of them selling firearms and ammunition to undercover agents posing as straw purchasers and entering their information on the relevant forms despite knowing that they were making the purchases for Roman, (b) the testimony of those undercover agents, and (c) the testimony of Roman.”
The government claimed in the brief that “Deputy Batts’ testimony did not relate at all to Rick and Ryin’s guilt, and it was only marginally relevant to Terri’s guilt.”
The government reiterated their allegations stated in closing during trial,
“… the reason Terri called Deputy Batts was not to report criminal activity (as the defense argued), but instead to cover her tracks.”
The government’s opening brief requests that the Appeals Court reverse Judge Brack’s order granting the Reeses a new trial and direct Judge Brack to proceed to sentencing.
(Next post the defense’ brief.)
As previously posted, in March 2013 the government appealed Judge Robert C. Brack’s memorandum opinion granting Rick, Terri and Ryin Reese a new trial.
In late April, the government filed a motion requesting an extension of an additional thirty days to file its opening brief and appendix, which were due April 30, 2013. The AUSA handling the appeal on behalf of the government, Laura Fashing, cited a heavy case load, and some personal matters that interfered with her ability to submit the opening brief before the deadline.
AUSA Fashing also informed the appeals court, “Furthermore, the government may not file an opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals without authorization from the Solicitor General” … and … “Although the government has acted expeditiously in this appeal, the Solicitor General has not yet given his final authorization for the government to pursue this appeal.”
It turns out the Solicitor General decides which cases the federal government will appeal, since it could eventually wind up in the Supreme Court. Ultimately the Office of the Solicitor General represents the United States in all Supreme Court cases. As a result, the solicitor general’s office reviews all cases decided against the government in the lower courts and decides if the case should be appealed. In this case, Judge Brack decided against the government and granted the three Reeses a new trial.
The first bump in the road for the Reeses involved a similar issue that arose before the original trial. The government requested more time because they felt there was a potential conflict of having only one attorney represent Rick, Terri and Ryin Reese during the appeal. During the original case, the government opposed the four defendants being represented by only one attorney. The judge agreed with the government and the Reeses had to hire four separate attorneys to represent them in the original case.
The government filed an opposition to the Reese’s having joint representation in the appeals case due to a potential conflict of interest.
Michael Connelly of the US Justice Foundation, along with the Herbert Titus and William Olson filed a response and argued that the trial judge’s ruling on joint representation before the 2012 trial is no longer relevant. They argued that the only legal issue on appeal is “[w]hether the government violated its Giglio obligations concerning one of its trial witnesses, a law enforcement officer who himself had been the subject of an FBI investigation, to the prejudice of the three Reeses convicted at trial.” In addition, they claimed that the government failed to identify any realistic conflict of interest.
One day after the Reese attorneys filed their response, the Appeal Circuit Judges denied the government’s request without prejudice and indicated they were unable to determine if a conflict existed because the briefs had not yet been submitted. The judges informed the government may file a similar motion after the case has been fully briefed.
Next post – the government’s brief.
On August 30, 2011, Rick and Terri Reese and their two sons were arrested and charged with 30 gun-related counts including conspiracy, gun smuggling, money laundering and form 4473 violations for knowingly selling guns to Mexican cartel and undercover officer straw purchasers.
Nearly a year later, Judge Robert C. Brack tossed out two of the counts due to a lack of evidence http://www.lunatpp.org/reese-trial-judge-throws-out-money-laundering-conspiracy-charges/ and the jury acquitted them of 24 counts. On August 1, 2012, Rick and Terri were found guilty of one count each, and Ryin was found guilty of two counts. The guilty verdicts related only to charges related to knowing that they were selling to straw purchasers. Remington Reese was acquitted of all charges.
In January 2013, Judge Brack granted Rick, Terri and Ryin a new trial after deciding that the government had withheld evidence in the case and violated their constitutional rights. Details of the hearing that led to the trial can be read here http://www.lunatpp.org/reese-hearing-motion-for-a-new-trial-2/ which is the first of a 5 part series. The effect of granting the new trial voids their convictions. The judge’s order can be reviewed here http://www.scribd.com/doc/123390298/Reese-Order. Shortly thereafter, Rick and Ryin were released on bond pending a new trial.
After the defense attorneys submitted a motion to dismiss the case, http://www.lunatpp.org/reese-case-motion-to-dismiss-with-prejudice-march-7-2013/ , the government decided to appeal Judge Brack’s decision granting a new trial. http://www.lunatpp.org/reese-case-prosecution-appeals-judge-bracks-decision/.
In March, the US Justice Foundation agreed to handle the appeal case for the Reeses, and claimed the Reese case is the most important Second Amendment legal case in America at the moment.
By April, Judge Brack ordered the ankle monitors be removed from Rick and Ryin and shortened their curfew hours. They still report in nightly to their probation officer, and seek permission to travel as needed to comply with the conditions of their bond.
The government’s briefs to the appeals court had not been filed by this time, but the deadline for them to file was nearing.
Status at this point:
- The government has appealed Judge Brack’s order for a new trial.
- The Reese attorneys have requested the appeal case be argued orally to appeals court.
- The Motion to Dismiss the remaining four charges is on hold pending the outcome of the appeals case.
- The Civil Forfeiture case still lurks in the background.
- The Reeses have filed a motion seeking return of some of their property so they can pay legal fees, and the government opposes returning any of their property.
- A new trial is on hold until the two issues are resolved – the appeals case and the motion to dismiss.
Details regarding the above are forthcoming.
The government appealed the decision by Judge Brack granting Rick, Terri and Ryin Reese a new trial based on the government violating their civil rights.
The government filed their brief last month and this evening the Reese’s filed their brief. The brief is not brief, it is 79 pages long.
During the January 2013 evidentiary hearing for the Motion for a New Trial, Deputy Alan Batts testified he did not call FBI Agent Gary Brotan and inform the FBI that another officer was involved in criminal activity.
Specifically Deputy Batts testified in Court during the Reese hearing:
“He’s stating that I called reporting another … officer. That never happened. I don’t ever recall calling Garry Brotan reporting something on another officer. He said I had recorded conversations with somebody and turned it over to the FBI? No sir. I never called GarryBrotan….“
However, on page 19 of the appellee’s brief, the FBI’s contemporaneous notes entered by FBI Agent Brotan indicate something completely different:
“… in response to a telephone message to contact Batts, “[t]he writer [Brotan] along with SA Joe Acosta telephonically contacted Investigator Batts [who]advised that he had some information to pass onto the FBI” concerning some potential criminal activity by another Luna County law enforcement officer named Brookhouser who was referred to by name in the FBI original report.” (emphasis added, first name not indicated)
During the December 2012 hearing and again at the January 2013 hearing, it was learned that a FBI investigation into public corruption in Luna County has been ongoing since 2002 and that Luna County Sheriff’s Deputy Alan Batts was named as one of multiple persons being investigated.
The brief also quotes additional testimony in January hearing:
“Agent Brotan testified that he spoke with Batts by telephone on May 5, 2008, and that Batts provided some information of criminal activity involving another Luna County law enforcement official. And Brotan testified that, in the course of the conversation, Batts stated that he, Batts, had a good reputation, and that he was not involved in any wrongdoing. XIV App. 3155, l. 4 – 3156, l. 21. “Right after the phone call” (XIV App. at 3186, ll. 9-11), Special Agent Acosta testified that the “FBI collectively” formed the opinion that Batts had been“tipped … off” (XIV App. at 3185, ll. 19-24) “that the FBI was looking at him and some other officers.” (emphasis added)
It is not known at this writing how many officers are under investigation in the ongoing public corruption case. As far as this writer knows, no charges have been filed against either Batts or Brookhouser.
Additional updates concerning the government’s brief and other aspects of the Reese’s brief are forthcoming.
Rick Reese and his family operated one of the largest gun stores in New Mexico. It was located just 30 miles north of the US-Mexican border. The bulk of his customers were law enforcement officers from across the entire country.
In August 2011, federal agents arrested all four members of the Reese family one-by-one. They were read their rights, then pressured to waive their rights to an attorney. The government agents wanted them to talk, but the government didn’t even tell them what they had been arrested for. The boys were pressured to rat on each other and their parents. None of the Reeses waived their rights – after all, they still believed in the American system of justice and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. They were booked, jailed, and their assets seized. At the time, they didn’t even realize they couldn’t afford even one single attorney, much less four defense attorneys.
It wasn’t until days later that they learned what they had been arrested for. They were handed the indictments in the courtroom right before a hearing. They each read the indictment in total astonishment. This is when they found out why they had been arrested. The indictment revealed the government had charged them with 30 counts of smuggling guns, money laundering, conspiracy, and paperwork violations relating to the pre-purchase criminal background checks they always conducted.
They listened in horror as the prosecution described them as a danger to the community, flight risks, and the kind of people who would go up on a mountain and get into a Ruby Ridge style shoot out with government agents rather than return to court to face trial.
A year later, the Judge dismissed the two money laundering charges. There was no evidence of that. The Jury heard the evidence, and after deliberating for a day, found Remington Reese not guilty of all charges, Terri Reese guilty of one paperwork violation, Rick Reese guilty of one paperwork violation, and Ryin Reese guilty of two paper violations. Tthe violations boiled down to the Reeses should have me the standard of “should have known”. They should have used ESP to determine the undercover agents were using government issued false identification, and that the FBI was in on the operation to approve agents using false ID to purchase weapons. They were supposed to use their ESP to figure out that the agents were going to smuggle the guns to Mexico. None of the guns were actually smuggled to Mexico.
Rick and Ryin Reese spent the nearly eighteen months in jail, while they waited for trial, and later for sentencing. Terri had been released on a $100,000 bond earlier so she could have surgery to remove a large tumor from her leg while she was in jail. While still recovering from surgery, government agents visited her home and then accused her of violating her bond and being a threat to the probation officers – officers who are armed and wearing bullet proof vests. It didn’t matter that the government had already seized all their personal and gun store inventory of weapons.
Sentencing never happened. Four months after conviction, while Rick and Ryin languished in jail, the judge learned that the prosecution had withheld evidence in the trial and ordered it be revealed to the defense attorneys. That eventually led to the public learning that a key witness in the case, Deputy Sheriff Allen Batts, had been under investigation for nearly ten years regarding allegations of ripping off drug dealers, stealing evidence destined to be seized by the federal government, smuggling drugs and illegal aliens, and other similar charges. He was never charged with any of those crimes.
The prosecution claimed withholding the evidence about Batts, was just a simple and harmless mistake, and that the defense attorneys were making a big to do about nothing. Judge Brack disagreed. His scathing memorandum order found that the prosecution had withheld evidence that could have changed the outcome of the trial. Point-by-point, Judge Brack outlined the three legal elements that needed to be met in order for him to grant a new trial. It is clear in the Judge’s memorandum that not only had the defense proved those key elements, but Judge Brack was aware of other similar instances involving prosecutors not turning over all of the evidence as required. Judge Brack ordered a new trial, and ordered Rick and Ryin released on $10,000 bond each – far lower than Rick’s wife’s $100,000 bond. $10,000 bond each for the baddest of the bad in the family.
After the prosecution had finished putting on their case in trial, defense attorneys filed a motion to dismiss all of the charges. Judge Brack did not dismiss them at that time.
After Judge Brack’s order for a new trial, defense attorneys revisited having the remaining charges dismissed and filed a motion for dismissal with prejudice two weeks ago. After all, the defense attorney’s job is to defend their clients to the best of their ability. Language in Judge Brack’s memorandum opinion may have opened the door for the defense attorneys to revisit a motion for dismissal.
After reading the judge’s memorandum, it is an easy to speculate that an overzealous quest for victory against the Reeses was involved in the decision making process from bottom to top, to withhold the evidence about Deputy Batts prior to the case going jury for deliberation.
The prosecution’s opposition to the motion for dismissal is quite likely standard operating procedure. When one party, in this case the defense, files a motion, the other party (the prosecution) files a response. It is the same in reverse. Many examples of this have occurred throughout the entire Reese ordeal. An early example is the defense request bond and stated their clients had ties to the community, were not dangerous, no prior record, business owners, and not flight risks. And the prosecution’s predictable canned responded was that they were dangerous to the community, flight risks, etc. They even alleged Remington Reese, then 19 and living at home, lived in New York to support their standard response. Remington has never even been to New York.
As indicated in David Codrea’s article yesterday http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-attorney-steps-up-case-against-reese-family-by-going-over-judge-s-head , the prosecution has filed their opposition to dismissal. Links to three document files are embedded in the article, and I urge you to read the article, and the links, and share them with everyone you know. Yes, it is that dreaded legalese. Read it anyway.
First, U.S. Attorney Ken Gonzales filed a notice of appeal of the judge’s decision granting the Reese’s a new trial. Simply put – they don’t want a new trial. They want the Reese case to move to sentencing.
Second, U.S. Attorney Ken Gonzales filed their opposition to the defense motion to dismiss. The short version on all that is the prosecution doesn’t want to have their staff on the witness stand in an evidentiary hearing to find out to what extent the evidence about Batts was suppressed – the who knew what and when angle. The prosecution lists a long line of cases indicating that most often the appropriate remedy for the prosecution breaking the rules is simply a new trial – not a dismissal of the case. However, buried within the pages are references to some cases where the judges have actually dismissed entire cases.
What nobody mentions when is comes to appropriate remedy is the continuing devastating financial effect a long list of motions and hearings and another trial will have on the Reese family. Guilt or innocence is practically secondary when you’ve been bankrupted by the federal government. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment!
Without having an evidentiary hearing, it would be impossible for the defense to find out several things. This would include being able to determine if the prosecution artfully asked questions to obscure the truth about Deputy Batts or any other evidence in the case. While the last hearing initiated exploring if the prosecutor withheld information, how far up the ladder the knowledge was can not be determined without an additional evidentiary hearing. Judge Brack’s memorandum addressed his opinion that this knowledge may have altered the outcome of the trial.
The Supreme Court case called Brady addresses a number of things the prosecutor must do regarding evidence. It part it addresses withholding evidence at the discovery phase, which occurs before trial. Another issue that can not be determined without an evidentiary hearing relates to the “constructive knowledge” of the prosecutors’ office . Did the prosecution exercise enough due diligence to have known the facts about Batts? Was simply sending the Luna County Sheriff a query of whether there was anything derogatory about Allen Batts enough due diligence? After all, it was revealed in the January hearing that only a very, very short list of people would be privileged to know that a corruption investigation was ongoing. And in the December hearing, it was learned that allegations of corruption would not be placed in the personnel file. Therefore, how would the sheriff know about the investigation if he was not on the short list?
From the Brady v Maryland case, suppression of material evidence justifies a new trial “irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
Brady also established rules concerning undisclosed evidence, and sets a “known or should have known” standard regarding truthfulness of testimony. Brady sets the highest standard against the use of perjured testimony.
The prosecution’s opposition to an evidentiary hearing includes an affidavit from AUSA Williams, and offers that as new evidence to supplement AUSA Williams’ testimony in January for Judge Brack to consider when he rules on this opposition to the motion to dismiss. In the affidavit, AUSA Williams indicates that he was not sufficiently prepared for the January 28, 2013 evidentiary hearing regarding the motion for a new trial.
AUSA Williams is a supervisor. He received his subpoena to testify approximately one week prior to being put on the witness stand in January. Just exactly how long does it take for a seasoned prosecutor to get ready to be sufficiently prepared to answer questions about a witness who should not have been used in the Reese case? He had more than a week actually. He knew about Batts prior to the Reese trial ending some six months earlier. And Batts’ name was mentioned in open court over four weeks before the January hearing.
The “known or should have known” and “constructive knowledge” standard should apply to all of the prosecutors, and hopefully Judge Brack will rule in favor of an evidentiary hearing.
Meanwhile, tomorrow’s evidentiary hearing has been vacated – i.e. cancelled. When additional information is learned about the impact of the government’s appeal on the judge’s decision for a new trial, it will be posted.
Meanwhile, prayers continue to pour in. And that is wonderful, but the Reese’s desperately need financial help. I pray that each one of you who reads this can commit to making a monthly contribution.
Reese Defense Fund, Attention Patricia Arias, First Savings Bank, 520 South Gold, Deming, NM 88030
submitted by Leslie Bronken
The hearing regarding the Motion to Dismiss that was scheduled for March 7th, 2013 has been cancelled.
Details posted shortly.
David Codrea has written an excellent article about the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Please read to learn additional details about the motion.