100 years knocked off Reyes' time

AUBURN – A former Nebraska corrections officer, who had his 120-year sentence overturned by an appeals court, will serve at least six more months in prison on a child abuse charge.

Defense Attorney Matthew McDonald told the court that 40-year-old James Reyes maintained his innocence throughout the ordeal that began with accusations in 2018. He said Reyes served 2.5 years in prison before the conviction was overturned and asked the court Wednesday for probation.

He said the first alleged victim was impacted by a divorce proceeding and had changed her story over time to include the possibility that some of her accusations were the result of a dream.

Deputy Nemaha County Attorney Angelo Ligouri  said despite the  defense’s psycho-sexual evaluation on the state's witness  and a 7 and a half-hour deposition, the facts remain the same.

Ligouri: “Victims have a difficult time recognizing, ‘hey, we’re coming forward and we’re asked to come forward and then the response to us coming forward is to be attacked,’ all at the same time the defendant is taking vacations out of state. It creates significant challenges.”

Judge Julie Smith made comments after reading three victim impact statements saying the victims expressed a loss of innocence, trouble with nightmares and terror about the day Reyes is released from custody.

Smith: “I know that you’re convicted of different charges now than you were then, the underlying facts though are the same. The court is going to find you are not a suitable candidate for probation.”

She sentenced Reyes to up to 20 years, but noted that he will be eligible for parole after six months.

Prior to sentencing, Ligouri asked the judge not to consider letters written in favor of Reyes above the testimony of the alleged victims.

Ligouri: “I did not see one statement in any of those that said I know what happened to these two victims, I was there. But the victims know what happened. They were there. They stated it and when they stated it they were told they were incredible or crazy. But now we have 31 statements from others who have no idea what happened and we’re suppose to give those consideration.”

The previous conviction was overturned. The appeals court said the jury is responsible for determining the credibility of witnesses, but the prosecution usurped that duty by personally vouching for the truthfulness of alleged victims.