Senate Hearing On Ramos and Compean 7/17/07

7/10/07

[Ladycalif]

Attached just in from Monica Ramos!!

July 10, 2007

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a "Hearing to Examine the Prosecution of Igancio Ramos and Jose Compean" for Tuesday July 17th, 2007 at 10:00am in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

Senator Feinstein will preside.

By order of the Chairman.

[erton1]

These guys turned down a plea bargain for a lesser offense that would have resulted in no prison time. Don’t blame Sutton for the defendants stupidity.

[erton1]

Well if you roll the dice and you lose, you better be ready for the consequences. The defendants knew range of punishment in this case and they got nowhere near the maximum, so your complaint falls on deaf ears.

[airborne]

Good information.

It reinforces my opinion that they’ve done enough time and Bush should commute their sentences.

[erton1]

Perdogg’s comment is what should have happened in this case. It would have if the defendants had taken the plea bargain. After reading their testimony I am surprised they did not.

[erton1]

Read the testimony of the other BP agents and the defendants themselves. These guys were guilty.

[Dante3]

In your view then the Duke lacrosse players should also have accepted a plea. What nonsense. It is obvious that no charges should have been filed against Ramos and Compean. Johnny Sutton and the judge withheld information that would have cleared the BP agents. Even law and order advocate John Walsh supports Ramos and Compeon. And they are not the only ones Johnny Sutton has framed.

[erton1]

No I try many criminal cases, and it is decision made after weighing the evidence and the potential exposure of being sent to prison, especially federal time without parole. No one should take a plea bargain if they truly feel they are not guilty. But after reading the defendants testimony, I would have urged them to take the plea bargain with probation and loss of their job. They had an eleven count indictment, were facing up to 25 years in prison and had a weak story to show legal justification for their actions. The jury obviously did not buy it.

If information was wrongfully withheld from the jury, that is an issue in the appeal. It may be successful or not. The 5th circuit case law on the evidentiary point of the admissibility of extraneous offenses to impeach a witness (Davila) will make it difficult for the defendants to prevail on that specific point of error. The 5th circuit is considered one of the more conservative and pro government circuits in the nation.

[Sioux-san]

What about the inbalance between what the BC agents did to the so-called victim, and the punishment? This is way out of wack, plea deal or not. Just a few months later the drug-dealing criminal was back in Texas delivering another load of dope. Lying/covering up are all bad and against the law/rules - no way should these guys be doing hard time in a Federal pen. It’s like telling your kid to fess up whether he did all his homework. He lies, and instead of getting grounded, you send him off to Juvenile detention.

[erton1]

The problem is the federal mandatory minimum law on the use of a firearm in the commission of a federal offense. This requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years stacked on top of any other sentence the defendant would receive. The plea deal proffer by the government would have defendants pleading guilty to one count without a finding of the use of a firearm and a recommendation of probation. They most likely would have gotten one year probation, no prison but would have lost their jobs. That I think was their big hang up with the plea bargain. My experience has been that when a person faces loss of his job or occupation as a result of a plea bargain, they are very hesitant to accept the deal. The defendants decided to go to trial needing a gut shot straight draw to prevail and lost. I am sure they would rather be home with their families, even if they have to flip burgers at Mickey D’s, rather than looking at spending the next decade at Club Fed.

[erton1]

The Mandatory minimum sentence law enacted by Congress does not contain an exception for LEO’s. It gives the judge no discretion in the sentencing, as shown in this case. This case is a good example why myself and many others are opposed to the mandatory minimum laws. There appears to be little traction in Congress to change the law, and the only group making an effort is the criminal defense attorney bar.

[Sioux-san]

I agree with what you have said - I am just saying that Sutton had a choice and he went for charges way out of proportion to the crime — do you agree with that? What am I missing?

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

May it be so!

[SoCalPol]

check this out

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1866931/posts?page=21

Man Jailed In Hit-And-Run Crash That Killed Son (illegal, DUI

[Theodore R.]

Even if you are correct, the punishment was way too severe.

[Theodore R.]

It very much has to do with GWB: it’s his prosecutor (Sutton) and his harsh sentencing.

[Perdogg]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1863953/posts?page=114#109

[Calpernia]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1867211/posts
Duncan Hunter testifies at today’s hearing on Border Agents Ramos and Compean

[Kimberly GG]

Wasting your time with the Bush apologists. They never miss an opportunity to justifiy the conviction of R & C and disrupt any thread pertaining to their release.

[Theodore R.]

When GWB suspects that he may be wrong, he digs in all the firmer. He will never pardon these agents because he BELIEVES in Johnny Sutton. It’s one of the few powers he seems to have left as he fiddles while his party disintegrates.

[AliVeritas]

Ping your lists

re: Ramos, Compean

Go to KRLA Ingraham, Sutton’s on and this hour (in three minutes) other radio hosts, callers and lawyers are questioning him on the case.

http://streamingradioguide.com/radio-shows-on-air.php