Transcripts of Trial - Border Agents Compean and Ramos

DOJ - U.S. Attorney's Office (Johnny Sutton) ^ | February 13, 2007

[calcowgirl]

The complete (I think) transcript was filed with the Court on Friday and entered in the Court record yesterday. The DOJ is hosting the transcripts on their website in a series of 18 PDF Files. They range in size from 5 pages to over 300 pages, covering pretrial matters, sentencing, as well as testimony.

The transcripts are linked at the site above, as well as most of the press releases issued by the U.S. Attorney office on this matter.

I am setting up this thread (in chat) as a place for us junkies can comment on the testimony and to post any revelations anyone might find. Have at it!!!!

VOLUME I: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%201.pdf

VOLUME II: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%202.pdf

VOLUME III: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%203.pdf

VOLUME IV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%204.pdf

VOLUME V: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%205.pdf

VOLUME VI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%206.pdf

VOLUME VII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%207.pdf

VOLUME VIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%208.pdf

VOLUME IX: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%209.pdf

VOLUME X: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2010.pdf

VOLUME XI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2011.pdf

VOLUME XII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2012.pdf

VOLUME XIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2013.pdf

VOLUME XIV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2014.pdf

VOLUME XV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2015.pdf

VOLUME XVI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2016.pdf

VOLUME XVII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2017.pdf

VOLUME XVIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2018.pdf
.

[Iwo Jima]

Yes, I know that. But did he really fire a shot? That is a question that I have. And, of course, the essential question is did any shot he fire on 2/17/05 hit OAD.

[Iwo Jima]

WOW! That's something! I can't figure out who was indicted exactly but if it's not Rene Sanchez, I don't know who it could have been.

[Iwo Jima]

In the snippets that I've read of Ramos's testimony. He did not come off well (though I disagree that some of the things that you reference that he said are that bad -- such as not hearing anyone say "Hit him.")

And is was the prosecution that made a big deal about the chase, as Kanof's opening statement made clear. (I haven't summarized my reading of that yet.

But I have a theory about why Ramos came across so poorly, and that has to do with whether he even fired a shot.

[Sue Bob]

I agree that they didn't seem well prepared. I couldn't understand why Stillinger was focusing on the pursuit either. It didn't tie to anything in the opening statements and it didn't seem relevant to me. I do think that Kanof was trying to make Ramos seem like a cowboy on the road--but the details about where they were and how they went through town lost me. I suppose that Kanof was trying to prove that they broke the rules of pursuit and how dangerous that was. But why did Stillinger focus on that?

I agree with you about what juries do when they don't like your client. People in El Paso don't like Border Patrol Agents, anyway.

As to recalling specific language in a policy--I empathize with Ramos. I got put on the stand in a Bad Faith lawsuit years ago and was asked to recall the words of a statute that I had been dealing with. I blanked.

I could have explained away each and every one of the points you raise given the heated and short circumstances. I thought that the defense attorneys did a mediocre job. They didn't make the events come alive. They didn't hilight the things that could cause witnesses to hear and see things differently in circumstances like the ones at issue.

Do you agree that this record gives little hope of reversal? I don't think that an appeal based on the verdict being against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence will have much chance of success.

[ContemptofCourt]

I'll be honest...I was expecting more from the record, given the assertions of the Ramos/Campean camp.

I can't comment on the chances of success of an appeal, because those are tricky beasts.

One thing does pop out though...the defense attorneys did not make a particularly compelling case for their clients. Whether that was because you can't make chicken salad out of chicken scratch, or just that they were not up to the task, I don't know.

[ContemptofCourt]

Yes, I know that. But did he really fire a shot?

1. If he said he fired a shot, then what is your point?

2. You know as well as I, whether he "really" fired a shot is irrelevant at this point..because he said on the record that he did fire a shot.

[calcowgirl]

A Possible? This Rene Sanchez was arrested Mar 22, 2005 and just got 10 years
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/10934783/detail.html

[calcowgirl]

A Possible? This Rene Sanchez was arrested Mar 22, 2006 and just got 10 years
http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/10934783/detail.html

[erton1]

I am a litigator rather than an appellate attorney, but I have worked on appeals on cases with appellate attorneys in cases I have tried. My experience is that to try to reverse a criminal conviction on sufficiency of the evidence grounds is very difficult unless there is a total lack of evidence of one of the elements of the offense. I haven't read the transcript, but if and when I do, I will look at the elements needed for conviction of each offense v. the evidence admitted at trial. I hope these guys get a good appellate attorney because from what you are saying, they will one.

[erton1]

I am a litigator rather than an appellate attorney, but I have worked on appeals on cases with appellate attorneys in cases I have tried. My experience is that to try to reverse a criminal conviction on sufficiency of the evidence grounds is very difficult unless there is a total lack of evidence of one of the elements of the offense. I haven't read the transcript, but if and when I do, I will look at the elements needed for conviction of each offense v. the evidence admitted at trial. I hope these guys get a good appellate attorney because from what you are saying, they will one.

[FOXFANVOX]

I was also disappointed with the transcript. This trial strikes me as a mirror image of th OJ trial. OJ had a "Dream Team" defense that overcame compelling evidence that OJ did it. Ramos-Compean had less than a "mediocre" [IMHO] defense and the prosecution convicted with little concrete evidence. They used immunity and intimidation to weave their case. The White House will not go against their pal Johnny Sutton, so the remaining hope may be the Congressional route.

I was struck by prosecutor Gonzales saying that Ramos' intent to kill was self evident because the BP are "trained to shoot to kill." My perspective would be that if they are trained to shoot to kill, than they responded to a perceived threat in the manner that they were trained. Peters objected to the claim that Ramos, like Compean, said he did "shoot to kill". He did not say that. Peters moved for a mistrial at that statement saying it was prejudicial. The motion was denied.

[I am in Volume 15 at the moment.]

[Iwo Jima]

Whether Ramos really fired a shot is relevant to me, separate and apart from any appeal. It is relevant to my understanding what was really going on.

As to why Ramos would say that he fired a shot if he did not, we would have to know what he was told by his attorney. Was he told as the prosecution claimed (falsely) that the ballistics matched the bullet with his weapon? Did his attorney tell him that she could not put him on the stand unless he testified that he fired a shot because she would be putting on perjured testimony, in her opinion?

Did Ramos just get so turned around by the false claim that the bullet came from his weapon that he thought that he must have fired even though he did not recall it?

I don't know, but that is why I am looking for all evidence that ODA was shot on 2/27/05 by Ramos's gun.

I don't understand all of the reasons why a criminal defendant might plead guilty when he is not guilty or makes untrue incriminating statements, but I know that it does happen. It is usually explained by fear that the government will come down harder on you or your attorney's advice that you will lose all credibility if you do not concede a point on which the evidence is supposedly "irrefutable."

[PRND21]

Now we know why the BP Union defense lawyers didn't leak the transcripts.

[1rudeboy]

I haven't read them yet, but it certainly sounds that way (that the transcripts don't really help their case). They milked the "Sutton is evil" angle as long as they could, which was to be expected . . . now I presume people are waiting for Corsi to tell them what to think.

[calcowgirl]

Here are their new appellate attorneys--do you know of either of them?

David L. Botsford (for Ramos)

Ed Mason (for Compean)

[FOXFANVOX]

If you take the time to look a little further into Johnny Sutton's history, you would find that that is not an undeserved label. What makes this trial so frustrating to those of us familiar with Johnny Sutton is that his office is condemning the very same type of cover up and violation of Constitutional rights that Sutton employed in an earlier case of his that went awry.

The big guys like Sutton and Berger get to cover their tracks; the little guys get 10+ years for trying to cover theirs. How many years did Sandy Berger get for intentionally stealing and destroying highly classified secrets? Had that been me, I would be in jail for years.

[1rudeboy]

I don't care to discuss the Federal Minimum Sentencing Guidelines with you, nor am I convinced that every Federal prosecution from now to eternity must be seen in light of the Sandy Berger case. If you (and others) wish to compare this case with Berger's, let's take a look at the charges, the potential sentences for them, and compare. "But Berger got off with a slap on the wrist" is an argument that needs more time in the oven.

[erton1]

I am familiar with the Botsford firm. They are excellent. I am not familiar with Mason. My practice is primarily in so. tx. and some in Austin. I don't get up to Dallas at all.

[FOXFANVOX]

If you don't want to discuss the Federal minimum Guidelines or the unfairness of the penalty received by Sandy Berger, than I don't care to discuss it with you either. There is more than just the rule of law at stake here, there is the question of whether that rule has been fairly applied and the even more disturbing question of abuse of government power.

There are numerous instances in this case of distortion and lying. The DHS I/G has admitted that his deputies lied to Congress about this case. A Border Agent who is a buddy of the smuggler is assigned custody of the smuggler and the ballistic evidence. The smuggler under oath says his BP pal briefed him, aided him, talked to him about ways to get medical attention and money from the USA. The agent denies it. These are two of the critical players in this drama.

If you don't think a smuggler getting $5 million and USBP Agents getting more than ten years in jail is a miscarriage of justice, we are definitely done discussing this.

[1rudeboy]

If you don't think a smuggler getting $5 million and USBP Agents getting more than ten years in jail is a miscarriage of justice, we are definitely done discussing this.

Years ago, I brought up the subject of the unconstitutionality of our Federal Sentencing Guidelines here and was accused of being a dope-smoking libertarian by the law & order crowd. Now, the law & order crowd is outraged by our Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Meanwhile, I consider myself to be a law & order type. I've stood in one place and watched as the parameters of the argument expand and contract to include my position. Welcome aboard.

As for Sandy Berger, you brought him up . . . if you choose to make a comparison between these two cases, please proceed.