Transcripts of Trial - Border Agents Compean and Ramos

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

[calcowgirl]

LOL.
I haven't ruled out the butler ;-)
(but he's not on my list of suspects)

[Iwo Jima]

I saw that, too. The very idea that the government does anything out of the goodness of its heart (if it even has a heart). There is so much wrong with criminal law that I can't even get started. It's a wonder anybody is ever acquitted of anything.

[Iwo Jima]

Yes, that's the information that I recalled having seen. It certainly raises serious questions about a very central issue in the case. I want to see the underlying documents, but I can guarantee you that an affidavit of Mr. Correa is a far cry from being the last word on the subject. It's the first word, not the last, but here it seems to be the only word, whatever it even says.

[erton1]

The only proof needed to prove that Ramos shot ODA is the stipulation. No other proof is necessary, so no other testimony or evidence was introduced at trial. In fact once the stipulation was admitted, neither side would be stupid enough to try to introduce additional evidence on the issue and probably incur the wrath of the trial judge for wasting the court's time. I don't know why the defense stipulated to the fact in question, unless it was part of of a failed trial strategy.In 27 years, I have never stipulated in a criminal case to any evidence, make the prosecution prove it. I disagree with your assertion that the 5th circuit will mostly reverse the convictions because influence from the executive branch.I know 2 justices and I feel strongly that neither one would succumb to what you predict. Nor do I believe any other justice on the 5th would do the same.

[erton1]

Unfortunately for you, this theory of yours is a loser as far as the appeal is concerned. I don't see how this helps in overturning the convictions.

[erton1]

After reading portions of the transcript, I will be very surprised if the agents motion to be released during the pendency of the appeal is granted by the 5th. It is unusual that the gov't requested the the motion and response be sealed. Maybe they are building another case against these guys and feel that something in their response will compromise that case. This observation is strictly a guess. I am interested to see who on the panel that issues the ruling on the agent's motion.

[erton1]

Take some Maalox before you read Ramos' testimony.

[Iwo Jima]

You are taking far too narrow a view of this. You are only thinking in terms of what proof was necessary for the trial. I am far more concerned with the truth of what actually happened.

The stipulation doesn't make a thing true or not. The truth of what the ballistics test and other proof shows actually happened is what is important.

The guilt or innocence of Ramos and Compean is not the most significant thing at issue here. Not by a long shot.

[Iwo Jima]

this theory of yours is a loser as far as the appeal is concerned...

And just what, pray tell, is "this theory of mine"?

[erton1]

Your theory that Ramos didn't shoot ODA. While I don't agree with the stipulation of the evidence, All I see is speculation on your part. Surely the defense attorney and her experts (if they had an expert) had an opportunity to review the evidence which was the subject of the stipulation. It is obvious that the trial strategy employed by the defense failed. If they had been successful with their strategy, everyone here would be hailing them as geniuses. Your speculation gets us no closer to the truth or a successful appeal.

[Domandred]

Ping for printing and reading

[philman_36]

locator

[calcowgirl]

This is a new one for me.

Note that this is the first real effort to scour the scene for evidence,
and a day after they had executed an immunity agreement with Aldrete-Davila:

Volume 12, p. 93-94
C. Sanchez - Cross by Mr. Antcliff

24 And March 17th, I believe, is when we got all the
25 agents -- or the majority of the agents out of my office, the
1 Office of Internal Audit -- at least one, if not two, agents
2 from the sector evidence team, and agents from other agencies,
3 go out there and help us go on line and look through it.

4 And also, we had, I believe, the Mexican investigators
5 from the American consulate in Ciudad Juarez, and Mexican
6 police, on the south side of the river assisting, also.

7 Q. And nobody found anything?

8 A. Nothing.

[calcowgirl]

I just read those stipulations again. Really weird. Not one of these refers to any proof or ballistics test that the bullet was matched to Ramos' gun, only that "Mr. Correa's testimony would establish that the .40 caliber bullet was expelled from the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39" (Ramos' gun).

Breaking down the stipulation, and referencing further definition from the evidence listing at bottom of Vol 7 (p.235), we know the nature of the exhibits:

• Exhibit 34 Chain of custody, bullet (Form)
• Exhibit 35 Chain of custody, bullet (Form)
• Exhibit 36 Bullet fragment is of a .40 caliber bullet. (bullet fragment)
• Exhibit 37 Re: Chain of custody, Beretta (Form)
• Exhibit 38 Re: Chain of custody, Beretta (Form)
• Exhibit 39A Ramos' .40 caliber Beretta (Gun)
• Exhibit 39B ("Bullet"--presumably from Ramos' gun)

In addition to the above, the parties stipulated that 1) Correa was an expert and 2) that Correa's testimony would establish was expelled from Ramos' gun. So, none of the ballistics tests were admitted into the court record at all, apparently.

I'm still baffled why they stipulated to this.
.

[Sue Bob]

We really need to get someone to release all ballastic reports.

[calcowgirl]

I would think the defense attorneys have them, right?
I wonder where Corsi got the first report.

[FOXFANVOX]

Morning "CalGal"! The ballistics is confusing and so is the defense strategy. Compean fires many shots [I think his lawyer argued it was less than 14, but still many shots], but Ramos fires only one. Granted that Ramos scored 90+ in marksmanship and Compean 70+, but the difference in the number of shots fired by each is significant.

It still puzzles me and apparently those who view the trial from a different perspective as to why Ramos' team would "stipulate" that the bullet removed was his. If I recall correctly, Renee Sanchez took both the bullet and OAD home with him for the night. This would seem a terrible corruption of the chain of evidence.

Lastly, the cell phone issue has interested me. OAD claimed, I think, that he left his cellphone in his van. The testimony said, I think, that the cellphone in the van was plugged in. OAD denied, I think, that his cellphone was plugged in. So, did he in fact have the cellphone with him but lied that he didn't to avoid the notion that his use of his cellphone would appear to be a weapon to the BP. OAD was picked up on the Mexican side. How did his accomplices know to meet him at that spot?

And, [last] lastly, why was the cellphone in the van never traced back, at least to find the names of call recipients.

This case shows an aggressive investigation of the Agents, but very little about the drug smuggling. The prosecution makes a big deal over the BP Agents overstepping their mission to stop illegal immigration by getting into drug dealers. The same could be said about the DHS who should be investigating drug smugglers [instead of giving immunity] and they did not. Question: why?

[calcowgirl]

I can't figure the defense strategy either. As to the bullet, I think you meant Chris Sanchez. Have you seen anything in the testimony about the chain of custody, or is the allegation that he took it home from a news article? What I glean from the transcripts, the chain of custody was as follows: OAD's leg--> doctor--> C.Sanchez (DHS-OIG)--> B.Carter (DHS-OIG)-->Crime lab. The doctor gave it to Sanchez on March 16, and Carter gave it to the Crime lab on March 17. It is curious as to what happened in between.

As to the cell phone, I haven't read that testimony yet. But I think any follow up on OAD's cohorts would have been handled by the DEA as that is beyond the jurisdiction of either the Border Patrol or the OIG.

One tidbit I read in Rene Sanchez's testimony is that he actually gave Chris Sanchez OAD's telephone number the first time he was talked to him to tell him about the alleged shooting incident. I guess a telephone number wasn't enough for Sutton to follow up on the smuggling angle. (Vol 5, p. 236-37)

[Arizona Carolyn]

I didn't know about the Mexican's helping look for the evidence, until that, either. I find it both interesting and apalling at the same time... also, that they never found any real evidence and so much in the case was hearsay.

[FOXFANVOX]

Yes, you are correct, it was Chris Sanchez not Renee. These names are all starting to blend together in my mind, and when the names are almost the same it creates a fog! Nevertheless, I think if Chris Sanchez had the evidence and OAD together, it taints the evidence.

You are probably correct about the various missions of the various alphabet soup departments. So much for Homeland Security simplifying everything, eh? But, I question why the investigation did not pursue the cellphone in the van for their investigation. They made a big deal of the chase and that Ramos may have exceeded the speed limit and of Ramos' transmissions on his car radio. One would hope that they would have also investigated cellphone records of the smuggler; unless of course that would have weakened their case.

If we have such great relations with Mexico and knew the guy in question was OAD, why did they not have him extradited, convict him and then offer him a reduced sentence for his testimony. The immunity [perhaps applied twice?], the medical care, the lawsuit [$5 million!] and now rumored citizenship? Osama Bin Ladin must be thinking about such a deal with great envy.

Thank you for your annotations. I am trying to read without taking notes in order to plow thru the transcript sooner, but it is starting to blur. I hope to go back later and extract relevant comments. But, like Britney, I may end up in rehab before I am done. 8)