Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reese Joint Response as Filed

Reese Joint Response as Filed

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9 |Likes:
Published by David Codrea
Counter to government motion opposing joint representation
Counter to government motion opposing joint representation

More info:

Published by: David Codrea on May 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,))Plaintiff-Appellant,))v.)No. 13-2037)RICK REESE, TERRI REESE, and RYIN REESE,))Defendants-Appellees.))DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES’JOINT RESPONSE INOPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTIONFOR RULING ON JOINT REPRESENTATIONPursuant to Rule 27, Fed. R. App. P., and in compliance with the Order of this Court dated May 1, 2013, Defendants-Appellees, Rick Reese, Terri Reese, andRyin Reese, by and through their attorneys Michael R. Connelly, and Herbert W.Titus and William J. Olson of William J. Olson, P.C. , file this Joint Response inOpposition to the Government’s Opposed Motion for Ruling on JointRepresentation. As grounds for this joint response, Defendants-Appellees makethe following Statement and Argument.STATEMENTOn March 5, 2013, the United States Government (“the Government”) filedits Notice of Appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the UnitedStates District Court for the District of New Mexico which had granted
Appellate Case: 13-2037 Document: 01019054298 Date Filed: 05/14/2013 Page: 1
Defendants-Appellees’ Motion for a New Trial on the four counts on whichconvictions had been returned by a jury on a 30-count indictment.
Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 2 (February 1, 2013) (Doc. 404) (attachedhereto) (hereinafter “New Trial Order”).On March 15, 2013, Rick Reese, Terri Reese, and Ryin Reese, individuallyand jointly, engaged the services of Michael Connelly and William J. Olson, P.C.to represent them in this appeal. On March 19, 2013, pursuant to their engagement agreement, Michael Connelly, and William J. Olson and Herbert W.Titus of William J. Olson, P.C., entered their appearances in this Court on behalf of Rick, Terri, and Ryin Reese.
On May 1, 2013, based upon an allegation that there may be a “potentialconflict of interest” among Rick, Terri, and Ryin Reese, the Government, in whatit described as “an excess of caution,” filed its Opposed Motion for Ruling onJoint Representation, requesting this Court to rule whether Herbert W. Titus,
The jury convicted Rick Reese of one count, Terri Reese of one count, and Ryin Reese
of two counts, each of which charged a separate violation of having knowingly made a falsestatement in connection with the acquisition of firearms. The jury acquitted the three Reeses onall other counts, except for two counts which had been previously dismissed by the district court.
 Also entering notices of appearance on March 13, 2013 and March 19, 2013,
respectively, were Jason Bowles representing Ryin Reese and Robert Gorence representing Rick Reese, each of whom had represented his respective client at trial.
Appellate Case: 13-2037 Document: 01019054298 Date Filed: 05/14/2013 Page: 2
William J. Olson, and Michael Connelly may “continue to represent the Reeses jointly on appeal.” Opposed Motion for Ruling on Joint Representation (“Jt. Repr.Motion”), pp. 4-5, 8. At issue in this motion is whether the Reeses are entitled to be jointly represented by counsel of their choice, or whether they would berequired to be represented by separate counsel.ARGUMENTAccording to Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), this Court “mustrecognize a presumption in favor of [the Reeses’] counsel of choice.”
at 164.In order to overcome that presumption, there must be either a “demonstration of actual conflict [or] a showing of a serious potential conflict.”
TheGovernment has made a showing of neither.As the Government has acknowledged, the United States Supreme Court hasrecognized that “joint representation on appeal is ... often appropriate.”
Jt.Repr. Motion at 8. Hence, unlike Rule 44(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of CriminalProcedure, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure do not impose a duty upon anappellate court to make inquiry regarding the propriety of joint representation. Nor is an appellate court obligated to order representation by separate counsel, aswould a district court, “[u]nless there is good cause to believe that no conflict of interest is likely to arise.”
See id.
Rather, on appeal where joint representation is
Appellate Case: 13-2037 Document: 01019054298 Date Filed: 05/14/2013 Page: 3

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->