Forfeit Gun AucitonsCitizens can learn and use jury power to thwart unjust prosecutions

David is fighting health problems, and still produced this gem:

Now that the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the Reese family will not get a new trial ordered by a District Court over a year ago, it may seem a moot point for the embattled former New Mexico gun dealer family, but reflections from some friends may help other defendants facing unjust prosecutions — that is, if a critical mass of Americans care to first educate themselves and then apply the courage of their convictions.

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. The new trial was ordered after it was revealed the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense and from jurors that a witness against the family was himself the subject of an FBI investigation, a matter dismissed by the Appeals Court which concluded “There is not a reasonable probability that the trial’s outcome would have been different had the government disclosed the investigation.”

“Another atrocity against the Reese family by the ‘justice’ system; appeals court moved to deny a fair trial by jury,” a longtime activist, colleague and friend (who chooses to remain anonymous for purposes of this column) observed in an email to fellow activists promoting last Thursday’s column bringing that news. “I can’t afford it, but I sent $100 anyway,” he revealed, providing the” Reese Defense Fund, Attention Patricia Arias, First Savings Bank, 520 South Gold, Deming, NM 88030” contribution information.

“Note how the courts turned the state’s hurdle of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ — as was intended to be decided by an informed and empowered jury — into a rigged hurdle against the defendants to prove that they ‘would’ve been likely to win’ — as ‘determined’ allegedly in good faith by one or more ‘justices’ or judges,” my friend observed. “Thus changing the presumption of innocence to more of a presumption of guilt. How do ‘justices’ know what a jury would’ve done had it been a fair trial? Some kind of crystal ball?

More Here at Gun Rights Examiner