by
Jeff Knox
A judge has ruled that, after a year and a half behind bars, Rick and Ryin Reese could be released on bail. And he followed up that order with a decision that the Reeses’ original trial was tainted and that a new trial should be granted.
In his order, Judge Robert Brack stated: “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.”
The judge then concluded by stating: “Viewing the significance of the suppressed evidence in relation to the record as a whole… the court concludes that the defendants’ Motion for New Trial should be granted.”
This decision was based on revelations that prosecutors improperly withheld information from Reese defense attorneys regarding an ongoing investigation into corruption among law enforcement officers in southern New Mexico, including a sheriff’s deputy who was an important player in the federal investigation and a witness in the Reese’s prosecution.
That information came out in a motion for a new trial filed last December, culminating in a hearing on the matter earlier this week. In that hearing, FBI agents and an Assistant U.S. Attorney testified that Det. Alan Batts of the Luna County Sheriff’s Department has been under investigation for corruption for almost 10 years and that this information was recognized as potentially impacting the Reese case. They further testified that Batts had indicated that he knew he was under investigation and therefore might have had a motive for currying favor with prosecutors with his testimony against the Reeses.
The judge noted that Batts had testified that Teri Reese had indicated to him that she knew that a gun sold to a particular purchaser had turned up in Mexico, but in her testimony, Mrs. Reese had denied such knowledge. Prosecutors had used this conflicting testimony to cast doubt on Mrs. Reese’s veracity, and returned to the conflicting statements several times during the trial, specifically pointing out that Batts had no reason to lie. Had the defense known about the ongoing corruption investigation of Batts, they could have shown that he did indeed have a motive to lie and the knowledge of this motive might have influenced the jury in the defense’s favor. Read More:
A judge has ruled that, after a year and a half behind bars, Rick and Ryin Reese could be released on bail. And he followed up that order with a decision that the Reeses’ original trial was tainted and that a new trial should be granted.
In his order, Judge Robert Brack stated: “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.”
The judge then concluded by stating: “Viewing the significance of the suppressed evidence in relation to the record as a whole… the court concludes that the defendants’ Motion for New Trial should be granted.”
This decision was based on revelations that prosecutors improperly withheld information from Reese defense attorneys regarding an ongoing investigation into corruption among law enforcement officers in southern New Mexico, including a sheriff’s deputy who was an important player in the federal investigation and a witness in the Reese’s prosecution.
That information came out in a motion for a new trial filed last December, culminating in a hearing on the matter earlier this week. In that hearing, FBI agents and an Assistant U.S. Attorney testified that Det. Alan Batts of the Luna County Sheriff’s Department has been under investigation for corruption for almost 10 years and that this information was recognized as potentially impacting the Reese case. They further testified that Batts had indicated that he knew he was under investigation and therefore might have had a motive for currying favor with prosecutors with his testimony against the Reeses.
The judge noted that Batts had testified that Teri Reese had indicated to him that she knew that a gun sold to a particular purchaser had turned up in Mexico, but in her testimony, Mrs. Reese had denied such knowledge. Prosecutors had used this conflicting testimony to cast doubt on Mrs. Reese’s veracity, and returned to the conflicting statements several times during the trial, specifically pointing out that Batts had no reason to lie. Had the defense known about the ongoing corruption investigation of Batts, they could have shown that he did indeed have a motive to lie and the knowledge of this motive might have influenced the jury in the defense’s favor. Read More:
No comments:
Post a Comment