SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: FJB who wrote (778403)4/4/2014 11:27:42 AM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
TideGlider

   of 1577387
 
NM:Reese family challenges appeals panel overturning of new trial order
..............................................................................
Gun Rights Examiner ^ | 3 April, 2014 | David Codrea


Attorneys for the Reese family filed a petition for rehearing en banc Tuesday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver. This latest move by the defense challenges a March 19 decision by a three judge panel overturning a District Court decision that the family of former gun dealers merited a new trial based on the prosecution withholding evidence that a witness had been the subject of a criminal investigation.

The panel’s ruling last month was another in a series of setbacks for a family that has endured an ordeal approaching three years. 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.

Challenging that panel’s findings, the defense is arguing, among other things, that it lacked appropriate authority, that the decision “wrongfully refused to examine the District Court’s findings of fact for clear error," and that it “whitewashed the government’s deliberate wrongful violation[s].”

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News