Transcripts of Trial - Border Agents Compean and Ramos

I would suggest you learn to live with dissappointment, because you have set an impossible bar to hurdle, one that is absurd. Nobody could satisfy you. You ask to "show me the testimony", but state that you wouldn't believe it was true anyway.

I don't know what you "have read" that you blindly accept as fact so that you can reject the sworn statements of five people, three of whom are keenly interested in finding fault with the evidence. You are essentially accepting the word of ignorant people and reporters over the sworn agreement of people trained in the law.

201 posted on 02/16/2007 1:04:31 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

To: CharlesWayneCT

Chucky is an endearing term! :-)

202 posted on 02/16/2007 1:05:24 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

And yes, there is a lot to be gained by NOT allowing the prosecution to put on testimony that will be irrefutable and will drive home the fact that your client shot the man, especially if you intend to oppose the testimony and thus indicate to the jury that you doubt your own defense argument that the shooting was justified.

Why do you not think that is a reason not to fight the evidence?

203 posted on 02/16/2007 1:06:24 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

Every time I read it, I here Mark Levin's voice saying "Chucky Schmucky Schumer". :-)

204 posted on 02/16/2007 1:09:54 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

I don't always side with the cops. I do always look at things from the perspective of the accused, because that's the law and the just thing to do, and in this case that's the cops.

It is a good mystery, and it is clear that so much more is at stake other than the surface allegations. It's that "something else" that is of interest to me. Just why did this trial even happen at all? If anyone else had called the authorities and said "I got shot in the butt while running drugs and I won't testify" the only thing that the LEO being contacted would have done is bust a gut laughing so hard as he hung up the phone.

I hate to say it, but what's really going on here is more important than the guilt or innocence of Ramos and Compean, and getting to the bottom of it is more important than their being pardoned.

205 posted on 02/16/2007 1:14:00 PM PST by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")

Why would a defense counsel stipulate to such crucial information for which there is no evidence? Even if you think that it is true, make them prove it. Much helpful information can come out of cross-examination of the "experts."

I believe that will be one of the lingering questions. It makes no sense to me. The government has the duty to prove beyond a reasonable doubt... make them do it.

Here in Houston we have had serious problems with our crime lab just making stuff up. ... Sometimes, not only were the test results not as represented, there was never even a test done!

That is frightening on many levels.

Far too many criminal defense attorneys are just too lazy -- intellectually, physically, and morally -- too get adversarial with the prosecution.

I don't know what it is with these attorneys. Even in the testimony, I don't understand why they don't follow up on a line of questioning. So far, Antcliff seems to be the sharpest from the defense team, to me. Stillinger is all over the place. Gonzalez seems like a bully and Kanof comes off as a witch. Maybe defense counsel was just way out of their league, our heavily out-gunned.

206 posted on 02/16/2007 1:15:12 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

To: CharlesWayneCT

You are right about one thing -- I am hard to satisfy. As long as I have any inkling that an injustice has been done, I am like a bulldog.

But it is like the curious matter of the dog barking in the night (Sherlock Holmes reference -- the curious thing is that the dog didn't bark in the night).

Here, given the world of hurt Sutton is in, the curious matter is that he has not released the ballistics report or the expert's testimony. I'm betting that's because it was either inconclusive or acting exonerated Ramos.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point until we get more information released.

207 posted on 02/16/2007 1:20:49 PM PST by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")

I do agree with that. While I would like to find the Agents were unjustly penalized, the bigger issue, I agree, is why the vigorous prosecution of this case. Why a couple of Agents that may have exceeded their guidelines, and why not the death dealing drug cartels. Why not the growing menace of Mexican gangs? [Which have invaded all the way here to Charlotte, NC.]

There are usually two paths that lead to answers. First, follow the money. Second, follow the politics/power.

So back to books. I'll check back later.

208 posted on 02/16/2007 1:24:53 PM PST by FOXFANVOX (God Bless the Military!)

To: CharlesWayneCT

Are you an attorney? I ask that not to be condescending but to gauge what experiences you might have had along these lines.

I am a civil trial lawyer, not a criminal trial lawyer. In my experience, you never get any mileage by stipulating that a central fact is against you. Never. The jury doesn't give you "goodie points." Just making the opposition prove what they say is true helps you.

There will be some on the jury that will simply disagree with the testimony or other evidence. Somebody will just take a visceral dislike to the witness. Somebody will think that they know as much as "expert" and pride themselves in pointing out his faults to the jury. Somebody will get confused and that the expert said "X" when he said "not X."

Putting on even the most "certain" of evidence always runs the risk that it backfires on you -- a risk that is totally eliminated by a stipulation.

As far as the evidence "driving the point home," nothing drives a point home as much as agreeing that it is true.

209 posted on 02/16/2007 1:30:57 PM PST by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")

..full of intrigue and changed testimony and outright lies...

And, amazingly enough, that is an understatement! LOL.

To find the truth, Bump! :-)

210 posted on 02/16/2007 1:31:46 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

To: CharlesWayneCT

ROFL! I can assure you, Schumer was not on my mind!
My apologies.

211 posted on 02/16/2007 1:34:45 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

No, I am not a lawyer. I have been a juror, but I wouldn't suggest that being so makes me an expert at how jurors think. I do have lawyer friends who I ask questions like this so I can understand.

In support of my opinion, I'm surprised the prosecution stipulates this. In the case against Marion Barry for cocaine in DC, they stipulated that he was smoking crack in the video. He was found not guilty on that count, as a juror convinced the rest of the jury that the white powder didn't look like cocaine, and noted that nobody had actually testified that it was cocaine.

Having seen that, it lent credence to me to the idea that a prosecutor would want to present evidence that convicts, to ensure the jurors don't doubt it like they might doubt a stipulation, while a defendant might want to stipulate for the same reason.

But I do not have any real-world experience as to how a jury reacts to a particular presentation of evidence. WHich is kind of why I asked you to comment specifically on my theory, as I'm not good at accepting people as "experts" but am always willing to consider a reasoned example of why I am wrong.

212 posted on 02/16/2007 1:42:48 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

I didn't think you were, although that isn't the only example of the term being used to preject a childishness about someone. It's not your fault I let my name be associated with Chuckie.

I've never actually gone by "chuck", chuckie", or even charlie.

213 posted on 02/16/2007 1:44:42 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

What bugs me most about the transcript of this trial is that it was not adversarial . It was all far too chummy. The prosecutors were nasty, the judge was ingratiating to the prosecution, and the defense counsel were too nicey-nice, for the most part.

I have to keep in mind the differences between civil and criminal law. They get to do very little if any discovery, trials are quick and down and dirty, and the disparity between the resources available to and public perceptions of the parties is enormous. Given all that, though, I can't understand the lackadaisical approach of most criminal defense lawyers that I know.

I do not think that Stillinger did that bad a job (other than the stipulation). But she did not seem to have a coherent strategy and put ALL of her eggs in the "it was a justified shooting" basket. Ramos did so poorly on the stand that you wonder how well he was prepared, if at all. He certainly wasn't given direction on what pitfalls to avoid (for one thing, he could have read up on the policy about reporting weapons discharges before he testified). If he was prepared and that is the best that he could do, maybe he shouldn't have testified at all. Just a thought.

214 posted on 02/16/2007 1:46:47 PM PST by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")

To: FOXFANVOX; Iwo Jima; Sue Bob

I'm tracking back through the thread and missed your comment::

And most importantly, has anyone run across the exact wording of the ballistic analysis.

From WND we have the following (although WND did not make available a copy of the report on their website):

The results of the ballistics tests were reported in a letter written by Joseph J. J. Correa, a Criminalist IV with the Texas DPS El Paso Laboratory, March 18, 2005, and addressed to Brian D. Carter of DHS in El Paso.

The letter states Correa examined one fired copper-jacketed bullet presented to him by Carter on March 17, 2005. The letter identifies the victim shot by the bullet as "Osvaldo Aldrete." In the letter, Correa notes that he was asked to determine the manufacture of the firearm that fired the submitted bullet. Correa could not positively identify Ramos's weapon as the one that fired the submitted bullet. His report concludes:

The copper-jacketed bullet was fired from a barrel having six lands and grooves inclined to the right. The manufacturer of the firearm that fired the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown, but could include commonly encountered models of .40 S&W caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols.

Correa's report gives no indication the bullet submitted for analysis was disfigured or in fragments, despite having been supposedly extracted from Aldrete-Davila's body after reportedly doing massive damage to his groin area and hitting bone.

The other thing I have seen is this, as included in an affidavit signed by an DHS-OIG Agent (name redacted) on February 18, 2005, and attached to the original Complaint, also dated February 18, 2005:

Ballistics testing confirms a government-issued weapon belonging to U.S. Border Patrol Agent Ignacio "Nacho" Ramos, a 96D Beretta .40 caliber automatic pistol, serial number BER067069M, fired a bullet (a .40 caliber Smith & Wesson jacketed hollow point) which hit the victim in the left buttocks while he was attempting to flee to Mexico.
Source: DHS-OIG Report of Investigation, pdf p.58, para 4.

Also, the DHS-OIG Report provides more info, not only on ballistics, but the timing of things:

On March 17, 2005, DHS OIG agents submitted the bullet extracted from Aldrete-Davila's leg to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), Crime Laboratory, [redacted (b)(7)c] Texas, for analysis. (Exhibit 29)

That same day, DHS OIG and OIA agents exchanged BP weapons with all of the BPAs that worked the day shift on February 17, 2005, but were unable to obtain the weapons for BPAs Ramos, Compean, and [redacted (b)(7)c]. Ramos and [redacted (b)(7)c] were on their regular days off and Compean was on annual leave. [Agent's Note Before submitting the weapons for analysis, DHS OIG had to wait for the ballistic testing of the bullet to determine if it could have come from the same make and model of pistol used by the BP.]

On March 18, 2005, DHS OIG and OIA agents encountered Ramos at his residence and exchanged Ramos' duty weapon with another weapon. DHS OIG agents subsequently submitted Ramos' duty weapon to the Texas DPS Crime Laboratory for analysis. (Exhibit 32)

Source: DHS-OIG Report of Investigation, pdf p.15-16.

Assuming all of these dates are true, recapping this information, with 'facts' found elsewhere in the DHS-OIG ROI, what we have is a fairly incredible sequence of events:

• March 16: A bullet is extracted from the right thigh of OAD at WBAMC by Col. Winston Warme.
• March 16: The bullet taken from OAD's thigh is given by Col. Warme to DHS-OIG Agent Chris Sanchez
• March 17, 2005: A Bullet is provided to J.J. Correa of the El Paso Crime Lab by Brian Carter of DHS, El Paso
• March 17, 2005: Duty weapons collected from all BP Agents except Ramos, Compean, and one other agent (name redacted)
• March 18, 2005: The El Paso Crime Lab has completed test of bullet and JJ Correa writes letter stating that bullet provided to them could have come from a .40 S&W caliber Beretta (among other manufacturers named)
• March 18, 2005: Ramos surrenders duty weapon to DHS OIG and OIA agents
• March 18, 2005: DHS OIG agents submitted Ramos' duty weapon to the Texas DPS Crime Laboratory for analysis.
• March 18, 2005: Affidavit completed stating that ballistics testing confirms bullet came from weapon of Ignacio Ramos (including serial number reference)
• March 18, 2005: Complaint written and presented to U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard Mesa who finds probable cause
• March 18, 2005: DHS OIG prepares arrest warrants
• March 18, 2005: Ramos and Compean arrested.

215 posted on 02/16/2007 2:59:53 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

I generally agree with you. I did get one chuckle out of an interchange whether they could question C.Sanchez about his finding that other BP Agents had fired weapons (on different occasions) and not reported it: MS. KANOF: Your Honor, Jencks is supposed to be given by law after the witnesses have testified. They aren't even entitled to this statement until Oscar Juarez. But, out of the goodness of the Government's heart, we gave it to them early.

MR. ANTCLIFF: Give me a break.

THE COURT: Okay. So noted.

I haven't read Ramos' testimony, nor Compean's. I'm leaving them for last.

216 posted on 02/16/2007 3:10:14 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

Thank you. That helps clarify the time-line and the differing reports that I have read.

Chores and word for word reading are getting in the way of getting thru more of the transcript. I probably should have started at the beginning and worked forward to imprint the proper chronology on my brain. But, my scattered attention span won't let me do the obvious.

217 posted on 02/16/2007 3:34:43 PM PST by FOXFANVOX (God Bless the Military!)

Not to worry. I'm not reading them in order, either.
Those details on Col Warme are from Volume 12.
I don't think I've even opened Volume 8, lol.
So much to read!

218 posted on 02/16/2007 3:38:45 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

It seemed to me as well that the adversarial relationship was not as adversarial as it should have been. There were some exchanges when the opposite sides seemed downright collegial.

219 posted on 02/16/2007 3:39:52 PM PST by FOXFANVOX (God Bless the Military!)

Well, at least we know how this "story" ends. And the butler didn't do it this time. 8)

220 posted on 02/16/2007 3:41:53 PM PST by FOXFANVOX (God Bless the Military!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794