top of page




Trevor was denied bail by the judge during his initial hearing the day following his arrest.  Golovinsky District Court.


September 27, 2019:  A month after being sent to jail, the defense presented its case regarding detention to a Moscow City Court appeals judge.  The defense argued that the original detention order placing Trevor in jail did not consider all of the information related to Trevor or the charges.  After hearing the information, the appeals judge granted Trevor unrestricted bail in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles (about $15,000).  The U.S. Embassy said that bail for an American is very rare and the amount of money ordered was low for anyone charged with this type of crime.


The appeals judge award of bail was appealed to a Court of Cassation and then overturned.  The bail was overturned based on the accusation that Trevor had not correctly registered his place of lodging (a minor administrative offense) and the appeals judge had not designated in writing when the bail money had to be paid to the court.  Even though the bail was paid well within the 72 business hours generally required, the courts revoked the bail that was awarded by the previous judge.

Photo by


February 3, 2020: The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation found that the revocation of Trevor’s bail by the courts was in violation of Russian legal procedures and many mistakes were made.  The Supreme Court had directed that a special Court of Causation to review the denial of bail and make a new ruling on the matter. 

Photo by the Moscow Times


On February 25, 2020, the trial judge in the Golovinsky District Court heard arguments from the defense to release Trevor on bail or house arrest based on the facts and the findings of the Supreme Court.  The judge ruled against the request and contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court.  He ordered Trevor held in jail for an additional six months while the trial continues.

Photo by the RAPSI


On March 25, 2020, the 2nd Court of Cassation reviewed the case regarding Trevor's denial of bail.  Trevor's attorneys were allowed to argue the case and Trevor's parents were allowed to testify.  The prosecutor surprisingly stated that he was not opposed to Trevor being released during his trial.  However, the prosecutor argued that this particular court was not the proper court to arrange for Trevor's release.  The court agreed and sent the case back to the Moscow City Court to be heard all over to include all of the information from the preceding appeals courts.  This hearing has not been scheduled due to the pandemic.

Photo by RAPSI

Photo by


On April 22, 2020, (Day 251), The appeal hearing was held in the Moscow City Court.  This was the 6th appeal hearing related to the method of detention (jail, house arrest, or bail).  The following is a generalized summary of what took place in the court.

REVIEW OF CASE BY THE JUDGE:  So that the judge would not have to read over 450 pages of the bail appeal case into the record, she asked the defense to identify specific areas of the case to be reviewed and read.  The defense identified several areas of the case to be read by the judge which included:

  • Investigator’s refusal to obtain videos from the police.

  • Expert opinion on police vehicle movement as show in traffic video.

  • Testimony of the driver in the car following the police vehicle.

  • Local Moscow Police report on Trevor’s activities (no report of bad activity).

  • SIZO-5 jail report on Trevor’s characteristics since incarceration (good report).

  • Trevor’s submission of reconciliation payments to the police officers “victims”.

  • Court of the second instance.  The appeal court that granted bail.

  • Receipts for bail payments to the Moscow City Court.

  • Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decision on Trevor’s bail being revoked.

  • Administrative case regarding Trevor’s registration and the inconsistencies with that charge.

  • Other information


TREVOR’S FATHER TESTIMONY:  Trevor’s father Joey Reed was asked questions by the defense attorneys about his address, profession, financial ability to support Trevor if he is released, how he can assure the court that Trevor will abide by the directions of the court, how long can he stay in Russia, and other questions.  The prosecutor did not have any questions for Mr. Reed.


DEFENSE ATTORNEYS BUKLOVA and NIKITENKOV:  Spoke about the following issues with the bail being revoked and with the charges against Trevor as they related to the method of detention.  (Spoke approximately 45 minutes)

  • The police taking Trevor to jail to detox.  Police station is not the place for detox.  Police had no way of determining level of intoxication.

  • Supreme court stated that there is doubt regarding the seriousness of the crime committed and the method of detention in jail could be too severe.

  • The administrative case (regarding Trevor not being properly registered) needs to be reviewed because there are many procedural wrongdoings such as there being no translator present when Trevor was asked to sign, the defendant’s signatures are placed in such a way that it is doubtful that they were placed on the documents after the text was written.

  • Trevor can’t be charged with penalty under 18.8 because he did not have the legal capacity to register a permanent residence in Russia.

  • The prosecutor’s action contributed to the wrongful decision of the court on the measure of detention (jail).  Only two testimonies were presented in court.  (2 police officers).

  • No video was presented at the initial court hearing.  No intoxication level was presented in the initial court hearing.  In the initial court hearing, the prosecutor only presented Trevor’s passport.

  • The defense believes that the decision to jail Trevor should not have been made without an investigation period.

  • What information we have now!

           1)  There are 2 “victims” (police officers).

           2)  Witness statements that the police car didn’t swerve on

                 the way to police station.

           3)  Video expert findings that the police car didn’t swerve in

                 the traffic video.

  • Positive characteristics and reports from neighborhood police and jail regarding Trevor.

  • Brought to the attention of the court a precedent case in Stavropol where the measure of detention for a similar case was different.

  • Taking into account that the prosecutor has presented no evidence to prove that Trevor would avoid prosecution, we believe that another measure of detention should be allowed.

  • The defense doubts the social danger of any actions by Trevor.

  • There were two girls with an intoxicated Trevor who didn’t know what to do.  They called the police because nothing else reasonable came to their mind.

  • The initial court was presented with a different picture of the situation.

             A foreigner without registration, dangerous, victims with 

             alleged body damage, and a police car that almost turned


  • There is no objective data to prove what happened.

  • The case was qualified as level II based on verbal testimony of police officers that was later changed by the police officers.

  • The court of second instance (1st Appeal Court) researched objective data and questioned contributing factors of Trevor’s situation.  (Then granted bail)

  • We are trying to present the full scope of the documents so that the court could make a sound decision.

  • The defendant doesn’t have any memory about what happened and is willing to receive a fair trial.

  • The indictment used to make a decision in the court of the first instance has been changed.

  • We rely on the Supreme Court decision as a sound decision and based on that request to change the measure of detention.

  • We believe there is not objective data which can confirm the severity of the crime and request to change the measure of detention to bail or house arrest.


PROSECUTOR: (Spoke for 2 minutes)

  • The prosecution researched data that proved the severity of the crime.

  • Trevor has no permanent place of residence.

  • Another measure of detention can’t secure him.

  • We can’t evaluate the defendant's medical condition without evidence being provided.


TREVOR STATEMENT:  Trevor was allowed to make a statement to the court following arguments.  He stated that the defense can’t provide medical documentation of his medical problems to the court if the jail will not release the information.  He also stated that he can’t have a permanent address for registration and that the Supreme Court ruled that him not having a permanent residence can’t be used to deny him bail or house arrest.  Trevor stated that he had placed money into an account for the police officers "victims" and he was willing to pay more if needed.  Trevor stated that he would not flee the country and would remain in Moscow until the courts make a decision.


JUDGE’S DECISION:  The court ruled that Trevor’s method of detention should remain jail.  The judge did not give a reason for her decision.  A reason will be given in the official documents when they are delivered to the court of the first instance within a month.

Outcome:  The defense can't appeal the court's decision back to the Court of Cassation until the judge's reasons are delivered in writing.  The time required for an appeal back to the Court of Cassation will probably take longer than Trevor's trial.  At which point, the issue of where he is detained will no longer matter.

bottom of page