NM:Reese Attorneys file for Rehearing En Banc

The Reese family operated a gun shop in Deming, NM.  The Reese family was put in jail without bond, all assets seized, and multiple charges piled on.   After they were cleared of the most serious charges by the jury, it was discovered that the Prosecution had failed to reveal that one of the main witnesses against them was under indictment himself.  The judge ordered a new trial, and the prosecution appealed.   David Codrea has been following this.

On March 19th 2014, the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals published its Order in the Reese case.  http://www.lunatpp.org/breaking-news-appeals-court-decision-reese-case/

In short, the 3 member panel of appellate court judges disagreed with the Judge Robert Brack’s decision to grant Rick, Terri and Ryin Reese a new trial.  Judge Brack was the trial judge and had made this decision after information came to light that the prosecution in the Reese case had not brought forth information about Deputy Sheriff Alan Batts, who the defense describe as a key witness in trial.

Michael Connelly of the US Justice Foundation, Robert Gorence, Jason Bowles, and Herb Titus, who is the attorney of record for the appeals case  filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc, which is a hearing in front of the entire bench of  appellate judges as opposed to just a panel of three.   En banc reviews can be used for unusually complex cases or cases of great importance, or when the decision appears to conflict with prior decisions of the court.

Reese attorneys cited three reasons for requesting the review, 1) the decision  applied a standard of review that conflicted with the US v Robinson decision, 2) the decision  applied a standard of review that conflicted with the US v Torres decision, and 3) that “the proceeding involved an erroneous ruling of exceptional importance that must be corrected by the full court.”

In February 2013, Judge Brack found that the prosecution, intentionally or negligentlty suppressed [exculpatory] evidence during the trial, and when viewing the record as a whole, the evidence about Deputy Batts was material and undermined confidence in the verdict.

More Here