Transcripts of Trial - Border Agents Compean and Ramos

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

[Iwo Jima]

Per Vol. 14, pages 43-44, Campean was 5'4" and 180 pounds. ODA was 6'0" and 160 pounds. FWIW.

[Iwo Jima]

It's an indictment of the government that ODA got treated in an army hospital. Or anywhere at government expense. That should never have happened.

[CharlesWayneCT]

THere wouldn't be TRIAL evidence that it was true, because the stipulation would be the only evidence necessary, and any attempt to introduce other evidence about it would be rejected as not germaine because of the stipulation.

Sometimes defence will stipulate because they fear that the prosecution's introduction of the evidence to prove a point will be more damaging to their client than simply conceding the point. Of course, if the PROSECUTION feels that way, they might oppose stipulation -- but a judge may accept the stipulation anyway.

The lawyer could have been incompetent, but if her experts told her there was no disputing the bullet analysis, she probably figured that fighting the idea that they bullet was Ramos's bullet was counter to her defense strategy that the shooting was justified.

If you think the shooting is justified, and you can't deny that you TOOK the shot, what's the point of getting into a losing fight over whether the shot hit the guy? It will just look like you think it would be better had you not shot at the guy to begin with.

[Iwo Jima]

Because there is no proof that Ramos did hit ODA. In fact the ballistics evidence may very well have proved that he DIDN'T hit ODA, that the bullet could not have come from his weapon. In any event, make them prove it. You get no advantage in stipulating to such a pivotal point.

It was a boneheaded move, at best. At worst, she may have stipulated to a lie, when the truth would have exonerated Ramos of the worst charges.

[CharlesWayneCT]

We shot him. If we had shot him while he was trying to gun down the agents, and taken him into custody, we would have been bound by law to treat his wounds.

God, man, we even are bound to do that for soldiers we capture on the field who have been shooting and killing our men, and even for illegal combatants.

There was no dispute that we shot the guy, and therefore we treated his wounds. This is not a "pro-amnesty" issue. There was the case in California where those two men in body armor shot and killed multiple people and it took 45 minutes to take them down. When they one guy was left bleeding to death and not given treatment, it was a big problem -- the officer in charge was sued, and had to prove that medical attention was given as quickly as it was safe to do so. There was nobody in the judicial system advancing the idea that it would be OK to leave the man untreated simply because he was a bad guy who didn't deserve to live.

So yes, it seems it pains you, but you live in a country that accepts the obligation to care for the wounds it inflicts on others, even if those others were engaged in crininal activity. We actually provide surgery and other life-saving medical treatment in prison to people who are on death row.

[calcowgirl]

I've come across some discussion on the fragments, in the testimony of the doctor (Col. Winston Warme). His testimony is in Vol 9, starting on page 180. There were 5 small fragments that he left in, and 1 large fragment removed from OAD's right thigh and handed to Chris Sanchez. The majority of this testimony on cross-examination had more to do with the trajectory of the bullet than with the condition of the fragment. (note: this portion is pretty graphic and does show that OAD had a very serious, debilitating injury.)

I haven't read anything in the transcripts yet about what Sanchez did with the bullet fragment.

[Iwo Jima]

There was no dispute that we shot the guy...

I dispute that. I dispute that most strongly.

[FOXFANVOX]

Thanx, I'll give it a scan.

[calcowgirl]

See Volume 7, page 118-120 for stipulations, referencing Government's Exhibits 34 through 39.
I'm shaking my head why they stipulated to all that.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes, you do, but given your complete lack of evidence for any doubt on that point, and the clearly implied proof that we did from the statements about the ballistic test, the testimony of the two agents that they DID shoot at him, the stipulation of Ramos that they hit him, the testimony of Compean that the man looked hurt after Ramos shot him, the testimony of other agents that davilas needed help when he reached the van in Mexico, I would call your dispute baseless and therefore without merit.

And even if false, the evidence suggested we shot the guy, given we shot AT him 15 times, we thought we hit him, and he had a bullet wound -- and therefore it was reasonable, appropriate, and expected that we would treat the wound.

[calcowgirl]

contrary to speculation, Sutton wasn't playing word games with the terms "arrested" vs. "indicted"

LOL. Nice bold font, Chucky.

The speculation was that Sutton is not being truthful. That has already been proven to be true in numerous other circumstances.

[calcowgirl]

Yesterday, the government filed in response in opposition, and requested that the motion and response be place under seal.

Just damn!

What's up with all this sealing of public documents? What could possibly be so secret about a bail request that the court would need to seal it? I don't get it.

Me neither [shaking head, jaw dropped open...]

[calcowgirl]

I am not upset and certainly a "synopsis of the testimony" is welcome. My challenges will usually come to selective excerpting and opinions not supported by the testimony.

I intended to provide ample opportunity for the pro-pardon folks ...

There you go again trying to paint everyone as "pro-pardon folks". Many are not, they would just like the whole truth to come out, not the Sutton/Chucky spin.

[CharlesWayneCT]

As to the stipulation regarding the bullet, and maybe this will answer IJ's question. The stipulation at that point specifies all of the testimony which would have been elicited proving the bullet was Ramos's bullet.

The parties agree and stipulate that the Governments would enter into evidence through the testimonies of the following witnesses, Colonel Winston Warme, medical doctor; Special Agent Christopher Sanchez, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, DHS-OIG; Special Agent Brian Carter, DHS-OIG; Ms. Elizabeth Munoz, crime lab evidence technician, Texas Department of Public Safety, DPS; Joseph James Correa, forensic scientist, the third, firearms and tool marks examiner, the following evidence marked for identification purposes as Government's Exhibits 39.

The parties stipulate that the Government would call Mr. Correa and would qualify him as an expert witness in the field of firearms and tool marks identification.

The parties stipulate that a proper chain of custody was maintained, Government's Exhibits 34 and 35.

As to the bullet fragment, Government's Exhibit 36, and that the evidence would establish through the testimony of Mr. Correa that Government's Exhibit 36 is, in fact, a .40 caliber bullet.

The parties stipulate a proper chain of custody was maintained, Government's Exhibits 37 and 38, as to the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39.

The parties also stipulate that Mr. Correa's testimon would establish that the .40 caliber bullet was expelled from 24 the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39.

The parties also stipulate that Government's Exhibit 39 was functional and operational as designed. Also, the parties stipulate that the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39, was issued to Ignacio Ramos by the United States Border Patrol for his use.

Lastly, all parties agree and stipulate that the .40 6 caliber bullet was surgically removed from the upper right thigh area of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila on or about March 16, 2006.

They then correct the date because it was actually 2005, For completeness, here's the signatories:

Signed and agreed to this the 21st day of 23 February 2006, Johnny Sutton, United States Attorney, by Jose Luis Gonzalez, Assistant United States Attorney; Stephen Peters, attorney for Defendant Ignacio Ramos, and Mary Stillinger, attorney for Defendant Ignacio Ramos, and Ignacio Ramos, Defendant.

So to answer IJ's question, they had testimony from a ballistics expert that the bullet came from Ramos' gun, and they had established a valid chain of custody for both the gun and the bullet.

This section of the testimony thus disproves the speculation that there was a problem with the chain of custody of the bullet. At least in the minds of every person involved in the case, including the defendant and his two lawyers.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I'm sorry, and I apologize.

[Iwo Jima]

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."

Here in Houston we have had serious problems with our crime lab just making stuff up. Time after time, it turns out that the defense attorney never even bothered to challenge what the prosecution said the results were. They just accepted as true whatever the prosecution chose to tell them was done and the results. Then they pressured their clients to plead guilty based on the "certainty" that such "incontrovertible evidence" would send them to jail. Sometimes, not only were the test results not as represented, there was never even a test done!

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

[CharlesWayneCT]

And I'm still not quite sure why you insist on making fun of my name. You otherwise haven't shown the vitriol a lot of other people have shown in this discussion.

[FOXFANVOX]

I got it. Thanks.

[Iwo Jima]

So to answer IJ's question, they had testimony from a ballistics expert that the bullet came from Ramos' gun, and they had established a valid chain of custody for both the gun and the bullet.

No, that's not true. Even if they did have (I assume ) deposition testimony, show me the testimony because until then I will not believe that that is what the testimony was or, if it was, that it was true.

And they had not established a proper chain of custody. From everything that I have read so far, I don't think that they ever could have established a chain of custody for this bullet. Thanks to Stillinger they didn't have to try.

They just STIPULATED that that would be the testimony. Stipulating does not make it true. It just means that for the purposes of this trial we will act as if it were true.

There is nothing to be gained by not requiring the experts to testify and the government to prove its case. This is so very disturbing.

[FOXFANVOX]

I think everybody is just getting tired and frustrated. Let's all remember that criticism is good, it will help us find the truth [I think, everybody's goal]. We need to point out discrepancies so they can be addressed.

My bias up front is that the government used the power of the Fed to smack a couple of guys who should have been handled locally and administratively. I think that Johnny Sutton has abused his power previously and is doing it again. That is my interest. Plus, I like mysteries, and this case is full of intrigue and changed testimony and outright lies. Neither side is looking real good at this point, but I always side with the cops, unless they are shown to be really bad, and so far the gov't has not shown that to me.