Stung by reversals in his office’s prosecution of the Reese family and mindful that scrutiny for his role in that case could derail his elevation to the federal bench, U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico Kenneth J. Gonzales filed three documents yesterday with the intent of denying a defense motion to dismiss outstanding counts and compel prosecutors to testify at an evidentiary hearing, and also to go over the head of U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Brack.
“Notice is hereby given that the United States of America, plaintiff in this case, appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 3731, from the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 404) entered on February 1, 2013, in which the Court granted the defendants’ motion for new trial on the counts of which the jury had found them guilty,” Gonzales wrote in a Notice of Appeal.
The second document, the United States’ Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice the Four Remaining Counts of the Indictment Based on Brady/Giglio Violations urges “The Court should deny the motion to dismiss and should do so without granting an evidentiary hearing.” The basic reasons they give, translated from arcane legalese, are they say they didn’t do anything wrong on purpose, what they did do wrong was just negligence because there were things they didn’t know, when they found out they’d messed up they tried to fix it, they’ve set up controls to keep it from happening again, and none of this warrants dismissal of the case. Plus they don't want to have to be questioned under oath about it.
The third filing, an affidavit by Richard C. Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, attempts to minimize his role in the withholding of information from the jury that a law enforcement agent who testified against the Reeses had been under criminal investigation, and to make excuses for not being prepared for a January evidentiary hearing where he knew it would be brought up (Rick and Ryin Reese had only been behind bars for 17 months by that time). He presents all kinds of thorough-looking documentation, prefaced with qualifiers in what he actually swore to like “It is possible that I did not mention Deputy Batts as a potential issue at that time ... ” and “I do not recall doing anything … ” and “I cannot be sure what was mentioned … ”
It’s evident that there is no way the prosecution team is going to let up on the Reeses, as they’ve already invested too much of their career reputations to walk away with nothing -- besides, it’s not like they’re spending their own money. Basically what the government is saying is, not only should remaining counts not be dismissed, but they shouldn’t have to give any more sworn testimony at an evidentiary hearing -- and just think about that for a moment -- plus they have no confidence in the judge who has thwarted them thus far, and want a higher court to put him in his place and overturn his decisions.
------------
My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is now online. Click here to read "A Shotgun Approach," starring noted defensive gun use expert Joe Biden.
If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
Comments