The jury was not present to hear a number of arguments about the charges throughout the trial.

Monday July 30th started off with one such argument, a Rule 29 Motion, which was a Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal.

The arguments started off with a Judgment of Acquittal on the conspiracy charges (County 1).  The Judge made several observations, including one that Remington and Ryin were just employees, not owners, and where was no agreement to launder money, and asked the prosecutor (Armijo) to help him understand the government’s position.  Part of Ms. Armijo’s response was that they had evidence that everyone except for Remington, traveled to the bank to make bank deposits of sales proceeds.  The Judge stated he acknowledged the Reese family played indirect roles, and had interchangeable roles, but was still having trouble with the money laundering charges.

Defense Attorney Pete Dominici, Jr. pointed out that in the James Hearing (a court proceeding to determine the admissibility of an out of court statement made by a co-conspirator), there was nothing stated about an agreement, and all the government did was show payment.

Judge Brack didn’t rule on Rule 29 at this point in time, and stated he would rule on it later (i.e., “reserved his decision” until later).

Defense Attorney Robert Gorence later explained that the timing of a decision on a Rule 29 motion was important to the defense, i.e. before or after the Jury’s verdict.

For further information see:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_29 which includes:

“…the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”

“..If the court reserves decision, it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved.”  (i.e. he couldn’t use any evidence presented after this point in time to make his decision).

(As you know by now, Judge Brack did dismiss the 2 money laundering counts before the case was sent to the Jury for lack of sufficient evidence.)