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.
In 2011, Rick and Terri Reese and their two sons, Remington and Ryin, were arrested and charged with 30 criminal counts including counts related to international weapons smuggling. One year later in trial, 2 counts were dismissed by Judge Brack, the jury found them not guilty of 24 counts, and convicted them of four counts involving paperwork violations. Remington Reese was found not guilty of all charges during trial.
Four months after conviction, and prior to sentencing, the prosecutor revealed that there was a problem with one of the deputies who testified against the Reeses during trial. As previously reported, a government U.S. Attorney and two FBI agents admitted under oath that Deputy Alan Batts had been under investigation for approximately ten years relating to accusations that he was involved in a number of crimes including ripping off drug dealers and stealing evidence destined to be seized by the federal government. The prosecution failed to inform the defense of this during trial. In a January hearing, Deputy Batts claimed he had no idea he had been under investigation and he has not been charged with any crimes.
As a result of the evidentiary hearing held in January 2013 regarding the Motion for a New Trial, Rick and Ryin Reese were released on $10,000 bond each. Terri Reese had been released on a $100,000 bond nearly a year earlier. After the January hearing, Judge Brack released his Memorandum Opinion and Order and granted the Reeses a new trial.
On February 20, 2013, the defense attorneys for the Reeses have filed a Motion to Dismiss. This hearing will be an evidentiary hearing and is scheduled on March 7, 2013 at 11:15 a.m. in Judge Brack’s 4th floor courtroom. Defense attorneys are seeking to have the Court dismiss the four counts against their clients based on ground that the Government was willfully or recklessly negligent in not disclosing Giglio material.
The defense attorneys intend to subpoena a number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys to the witness stand. This includes, AUSA Randy Castellano, Las Cruces Branch Chief Alfred Perez, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Yarbrough and U.S. Attorney Kennth Gonzales. The defense attorneys may also be putting the Reese prosecutors, AUSAs Armijo and Jordan, on the witness stand!
The purpose of putting these persons in the hot seat will be to establish if there has been “a willful constitutional violation” or if “there has been a pattern and practice in the U.S. Attorney’s Office under Mr. Gonzales’ tenure of suppressing Brady/Giglio information.”
Some of you may recall that Mr. Ken Gonzales was nominated last year by President Obama to become a federal judge. Mr. Gonzalez is the US Attorney who signed the indictment against the Reeses.
The defense motion quotes Judge Brack’s Memorandum Opinion:
As [AUSA] Mr. Castellano was present at the hearing, but did not testify, the Court is left to wonder whether he, appropriately, passed the information on to Ms. Armijo and Mr. Jordan or, inexplicably, sat on it. Regardless of the reason why the warnings went unheeded (or, more darkly, were ignored), there is no doubt that the prosecution, intentionally or negligently, suppressed the evidence.
Judge Brack also found that the Reeses did not receive a fair trial because the Government did not diclose Giglio material during trial and that the evidence was favorable to the defendants as it impeached a Government witness.
The Motion to Dismiss includes a number of cases supporting their argument to dismiss the case against the Reeses. Included in the argument is a list of cases that potentially demonstrate a pattern of withholding similar Brady/Giglio information by the U.S. Attorney’s office prior to and under Mr. Gonzales’ tenure.
The defense attorneys will attempt to establish intentional misconduct by the prosecution during the upcoming hearing, and/or that there is a pattern of practice at the U.S. Attorney’s Office of playing dirty.
The Motion to Dismiss cites a case previously heard by Judge Brack. This case also involved Prosecutor Maria Armijo and a violation based on non-disclosure of Giglio material. The Motion further indicates the Court exonerated Ms. Armijo in that case. The existance of this previous case may explain some of the note passing during the December 2012 Reese hearing that resulted in statements by AUSA James Tierney, Chief of the Criminal Division, that Ms. Armijo had no knowledge about the problem with Deputy Batts in the Reese case.
If the Reese defense attorneys are successful in the March hearing, a dismissal with prejudice would bar the government from prosecuting the Reeses later for the same charges.
Mark your calendar! March 7th. Plan to arrive by 10:30 a.m.
On January 28, 2013, at the end of the hearing for the Motion for New Trial, one of the last things Assistant U.S. Attrorney Maria Armijo stated to the Judge at the conclusion of the proceedings was that the government opposed their release for the same reasons as before. In past proceedings the government has alleged the Reeses are a danger to the community and flight risks.
Judge Brack asked if there was any new information that would support that the Reeses are still a danger, and if so, instructed AUSA Armijo to subit the information within 24 hours.
AUSA Armijo indicated that conditions were different than they are now and pointed to tape recorded telephone calls from their jail cells as late as last Friday. AUSA Armijo told Judge Brack that Ryin had stated the “world is going to end soon”, indicating this was a supporting reason for the Reeses still being a danger to the community.
Judge Brack gave the prosecution 24 hours to submit the information to him.
On January 29, 2013, the government filed their Second Supplment to Response to Defendants Motion for Release on Conditions Pending Sentencing, along with a sworn affidavit by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent Jose Ramon Martinez. S/A Martinez was one of the investigators in the Reese trial and is assigned to work in Deming. After Luna County Sheriff Deputy Alan Batts contacted Homeland Security, his superior assigned him to the case. His testimony during trial can be found here: http://www.lunatpp.org/reese-trial-penny-torres-case-begins/
The links to the actual affidavits of the recent phone calls that the government alleged to show that the Reeses are a danger to the community and flight risk are found in David Codrea’s article: http://www.examiner.com/article/government-fought-bail-release-claiming-gun-dealers-a-danger-to-community. It is highly recommended that everyone read this article and the actual affidavit and see for yourself just how dangerous these Reeses are. More importantly everyone should question WHY the Reeses are dangerous.
It should be noted that the dates of the phone calls that allegedly revealed how dangerous Rick and Ryin are and that they are flight risks are dated December 8th, 18th, and 20th of 2012. Therefore, in context, these phone calls were taped just prior to and after the first hearing requesting the immediate release of Ryin and Rick Reese, which was held on Decmember 18th, 2012. That was the hearing where the Chief of the Criminal Division for the entire State of New Mexico dropped the bombshell in the courtroom regarding Deputy Alan Batts and that he had been under investigation for some time by the Federal Bureau of Investigations for reasons not stated at that time.
To put all of this in perspective, let’s look at the sequence of events that unfolded.
Late November 2012, the defense attorneys received shocking information about a key witness in the case, Deputy Alan Batts, who was under investigation for ripping off drug dealers, stealing funds from the evidence locker that should have been subjected to forfeiture, smuggling drugs and smuggling illegal aliens. And to add insult in injury, the government didn’t turn over the information for four months, when they knew they should have turned it over during trial, and then had the gall to tell the judge the defense didn’t have the right to know about this.
A week later, Rick calls his wife and tells her, “The truth will come out finally and these people will be exposed for what they truly are – a bunch of cons liars and cheats and thieves.”
In retrospect, this is a dangerous statement – a danger to the prosecutors in the case certainly, but not a danger to the community.
Rick Reese called his wife again and told her, “He [presumably his attorney] did say that they are attempting to hide and seal a whole bunch of stuff that they are trying to open up you know, and that’s really encouraging because it shows the depth of the depravity of the justice department…”
In retrospect, after the January 28, 2013 explosive hearing, Rick’s comments were either intuitive or the problem that was occuring was explained to him by his attorney. Either way it was right on target, because this is exactly what the prosecutors were trying to do. They were trying to hide a lot of information from the defense. Yet, the AUSA is the one who accuses Rick of being dangerous to the community. Is he a danger to the community, or a danger to the prosecution?
On December 18th, the day of the hearing when the Chief of the Criminal Division initiates the exposure process of what has been going on, Rick and Ryin both complain about the treatment they received from the US Marshalls Service. How this makes them dangerous to the community or a flight risk completely escapes this writer.
Two days after the hearing, on December 20th,after just having heard the Chief of the Criminal Division explain to the trial Judge that the prosecutors withheld evidence that should have been released during trial, Rick told his wife, “They’ll get the world they deserve pretty soon!”
For those who know Rick and Terri Reese and know they are deeply religious, the immediate thought that might come to mind when hearing this statement is that God will take care of punishing them.
For those that don’t know their character, another thought could be interpreted, especially if one has a guilty mind. What if the roles become reversed and someone in the prosecution’s office finds themself in some serious hot water. In that light, they could be deemed very dangerous indeed – to the prosecution, not the general public.
It should be noted that nowhere in the supporting affidavit was there any information to support the statement made by AUSA Armijo to Judge Brack at the very end of the January 18, 2013 hearing that as late as the Friday before that hearing, that Ryin Reese had stated the “world is going to end soon”. Actually, there were no phone calls submitted as supporting evidence that they are dangerous to the community and flight risks dated in January 2013 at all.
Rick and Ryin were finally released and were picked up at the Federal Courthouse at 4:41 p.m. The family had been waiting for this reunion for a long time.
Friends and family celebrated last night at the Texas Roadhouse. Terri explained this was “their 1st real meal in 17 months”, referring to Ryin and Rick.
Remington has been waiting for his brother to be released from prison so he could celebrate his 21st birthday with his brother. That event is scheduled for sometime in the future. Remington and Ryin are living in an apartment in Las Cruces.
Terri and Rick are back and their home and not accepting visitors yet. Terri explained, “I’m not ready to share my man with anyone just yet.”
Rick expressed his extreme gratefulness to all of those who have stood by them and helped them.
Ryin is also “grateful to everyone” who has helped them. Ryin is looking forward to seeking employment after he takes a short time to get adjusted to the conditions of his release. He expressed some amazement at some of the simple advances in technology during the past 18 months, including the number of megapixels on cameras, and how thin laptops have become.
As always, Terri’s summed up their feelings succinctly, “Praise the Lord.”
Despite two orders from an obviously irked New Mexico U.S. District Court judge that the Reese family will be given a new trial and that father Rick and son Reese are to be released on bond, the pair remain behind bars this weekend because monitoring devices required by the order are not on hand, sources close to the case have confirmed to Gun Rights Examiner.
“Yes, bail money is good for now,” the source reveled, explaining “relatives, good friends and well-wishers have donated to the defense fund.
“They are waiting for the ankle monitors to get in for the release. United States Probation is getting them,” it was explained.
What this means is, the only reason the father and son have not already been released and must wait until at least Monday to be able to rejoin their family, is because those holding them are unable to comply with the judge’s order, and made no preparations anticipating the likely potential that a prosecution relying on suppression of evidence to win convictions might be overruled.
Rick and Ryin Reese are the last two members of a New Mexico gun dealer family jailed for allegedly knowingly selling guns to cartel members, but who were found not guilty on the most serious charges of conspiracy and had money laundering charges against them dismissed. They were convicted on a handful of lesser charges of making false statements on forms, basically under the presumption that they should have know federal agents were lying. Wife Terri was released on bond last year, and son Remington was cleared of all charges.
Judge Robert C. Brack is not the only one disturbed (and he was, and seriously as his opinion shows) by what he’s seen of prosecutorial misconduct. In a related development, California attorney Geordan Goebel, not involved in this case except as an outraged American, has written to New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich requesting an investigation for misconduct, and thus shown a way others can help shine a light on such abuses.
“I just read with alarm the U.S. District Court of New Mexico order granting a new trial in the U.S. vs. Rick Reese, et al. case,” Goebel wrote in an email Friday. “The court properly granted the defendants a new trial, finding the U.S. Attorney’s office INTENTIONALLY [emphasis in original] suppressed evidence to obtain a conviction.
“The U.S. Attorneys are supposed to be the ‘good guys,’” Goebel continued. “The entire justice system will collapse if the citizens feel the system is rigged and government cheats.
“I urge you to immediately investigate and HOLD THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS RESPONSIBLE [emphasis in original] for this gross abuse of power,” he concluded. “These government attorneys should be disbarred and put in jail. I am writing to you because this is happening in your state, right now. Your personal intervention in this matter would go a long way to restoring trust in the criminal justice system.”
As for the immediate future facing the Reese family, they are still deeply in debt as the government has seized/frozen everything they own, and much of the money for the bonds was a loan. Add to that not only existing bills, but the legal struggle still ahead, and supporters say funding to help them go on is critical to their ability to defend themselves. Supporters advise those interested in helping can do so by contributing to the Reese Defense Fund, Attention Patricia Arias, First Savings Bank, 520 South Gold, Deming, NM 88030.
UPDATE: Jeff Knox of The Firearms Coalition advises they have set up an online donation page at their website.