Trial begins for NM FFL dealer

[Grapeshot]

The prosecution has rested and Rick Reese has taken the stand in his own defense in the U.S. District Court in Las Cruces, N.M.,

http://www.examiner.com/article/gun...ms-smuggling-case?CID=examiner_alerts_article

 

[thebigsd]

"In another noteworthy observation on proceedings, a “tense moment in the courtroom” was reported on Friday “when the prosecution started picking up AK-47s and AR-15s and swinging them around the room pointed randomly at people – unintentionally. The careless handling of the weapons caught the eye of the Judge who stopped the prosecution and made sure the weapons were unloaded and secured.”

Sounds like the prosecutor could benefit from a gun safety course. Five points to the judge!

 

[DKSuddeth]

only convicted of false statements on federal firearms forms, which probably means they abbreviated the states.

 

[davidmcbeth]

only convicted of false statements on federal firearms forms, which probably means they abbreviated the states.

are on trial for conspiracy, aiding and abetting smuggling of firearms, money laundering and making false statements to investigators .... OP link source above

They got'em good ! Don't know what they'll get for the 4473 issues ... I have not seen the docs in ? and where they falsified the information...

 

[KBCraig]

only convicted of false statements on federal firearms forms,

Wait, what? Is this the outcome of the trial? Can you link to a source?

 

[KBCraig]

Never mind, found it myself:

http://www.lunatpp.org/reese-trial-verdict-is-out/

RICK Reese convicted of one count.

TERRI Reese convicted of one count.

RYIN Reese convicted of two counts.

REMINGTON Reese not guilty all counts. Remington was ordered released today. And will live with his grandparents, Marj & Jack Stewart.

Counts 7 & 8 False statements- RYIN - GUILTY

(Making a false statement by signing a 4473 related to the sale of a 50 caliber weapon and ammo to an undercover agent on June 15, 2011 that he should have known would be exported to Mexico.)
(Making a false statement by signing a 4473 related to the sale of a 50 caliber weapon and ammo and 2 AK47s and ammo to an undercover agent on July 7, 2011 that he should have known would be exported to Mexico.)

COUNT 9 – RICK False Statements – GUILTY

(Making a false statement by signing a 4473 related to the sale of 3 handguns and related ammunition to an undercover agent on July 29, 2011 that he should have known would be exported to Mexico.)

COUNTY 10, TERRI - False Statements GUILTY

(Making a false statement by signing a 4473 by helping an undercover agent select and purchase firearms on July 29, 2011 that she should have known would be exported to Mexico.)

The sad thing is, successfully appealing a determination of fact is almost impossible. The only choice, really, is to attack the law: that they can be convicted of making a false statement when they should have known that what they swore to was false.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Never mind, found it myself:

http://www.lunatpp.org/reese-trial-verdict-is-out/



The sad thing is, successfully appealing a determination of fact is almost impossible. The only choice, really, is to attack the law: that they can be convicted of making a false statement when they should have known that what they swore to was false.

English is a tough language .... replace "should have known" with "knew" and it means the same thing.

That's why I did not want to jump the gun with my previous post. Seems as if these are serious convictions.

 

[Grapeshot]

English is a tough language .... replace "should have known" with "knew" and it means the same thing.

That's why I did not want to jump the gun with my previous post. Seems as if these are serious convictions.

Not quite so. "should have known" is past perfect tense and does not state a fact.

OTOH "knew " is simple past tense, indicating a fact.

Big difference in my book.

 

[KBCraig]

Not quite so. "should have known" is past perfect tense and does not state a fact.

OTOH "knew " is simple past tense, indicating a fact.

Big difference in my book.

It's a big difference in grammar, but once the fact has been found by the finder of facts --the jury-- the found fact isn't easily appealed. For an appellate court to rule that the finder of fact was wrong requires that they be so blatantly wrong as to be equivalent to finding the sun guilty of rising in the west.