In addition to granting conditional release to Rick and Ryin Reese, the two remaining members of a New Mexico gun dealer family still behind bars after 18 months incarceration, Judge Robert C. Brack of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico has also granted a motion for a new trial, a Memorandum and Opinion Order filed today mandates.
“This matter came before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial … and Motion for Release on Conditions Pending Sentencing,” the order states. “On January 28, 2013, the Court held a hearing on these motions. Having considered the evidence, arguments of counsel and the relevant law, the Court grants these motions.
“Therefore, it is ordered that Defendants’ Motion for a new Trial … and Defendants’ Motion for release … are GRANTED,” the order concludes.
The father and son are the last two members of a New Mexico gun dealer family jailed for allegedly knowingly selling guns to cartel members, but who were subsequently 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 Reese was released on bond last year, and son Remington was cleared of all charges.
The case has taken an increasingly disturbing series of turns, including evidence that the prosecution intentionally withheld evidence. From his comments, Judge Brack appears to have finally had it with the prosecution. In addition to detailing the conditions of bail, the judge offers a scathing criticism of U.S. Attorney conduct throughout the case, charging ‘there is no doubt the prosecution, intentionally or negligently suppressed the evidence,” raising serious questions about witness credibility and other factors being withheld from jurors.
“Viewing the significance of the suppressed evidence in relation to the record as a whole,” Brack wrote, the Court concludes that Defendants’ Motion for a New Trial should be granted.”