David is fighting health problems, and still produced this gem:
Now that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the Reese family will not get a new trial
ordered by a District Court over a year ago, it may seem a moot point
for the embattled former New Mexico gun dealer family, but reflections
from some friends may help other defendants facing unjust prosecutions
-- that is, if a critical mass of Americans care to first educate
themselves and then apply the courage of their convictions.
Arrested in 2011 for allegedly knowingly selling guns to cartel members while operating a New Mexico gun store, all Reese family members were found not guilty
on the most serious charges of conspiracy. Additionally and
significantly, money laundering charges against them were dismissed.
Husband Rick, wife Terri and son Ryin were convicted on a handful of
lesser charges of making false statements on forms, basically under the
presumption that they should have known federal agents were lying, and
son Remington was cleared of all charges. The new trial was ordered
after it was revealed the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense
and from jurors that a witness against the family was himself the
subject of an FBI investigation, a matter dismissed by the Appeals Court
which concluded “There is not a reasonable probability that the trial’s
outcome would have been different had the government disclosed the
investigation.”
“Another atrocity against the Reese family
by the ‘justice’ system; appeals court moved to deny a fair trial by
jury,” a longtime activist, colleague and friend (who chooses to remain
anonymous for purposes of this column) observed in an email to fellow
activists promoting last Thursday’s column bringing that news. “I can’t
afford it, but I sent $100 anyway,” he revealed, providing the” Reese
Defense Fund, Attention Patricia Arias, First Savings Bank, 520 South
Gold, Deming, NM 88030” contribution information.
“Note how the courts turned the state's hurdle of ‘beyond a
reasonable doubt’ -- as was intended to be decided by an informed and
empowered jury -- into a rigged hurdle against the defendants to prove
that they ‘would've been likely to win’ -- as ‘determined’ allegedly in
good faith by one or more ‘justices’ or judges,” my friend observed.
“Thus changing the presumption of innocence to more of a presumption of
guilt. How do 'justices' know what a jury would've done had it been a
fair trial? Some kind of crystal ball?
More Here at Gun Rights Examiner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment