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
.

[FOXFANVOX]

Mexico has a vested interest in this. The more I read [here thanks to Calcowgirl, and in the transcript] the more that Mexican politics seems to be in the background. At first, I thought it was only because of Renee Sanchez' friendship, but now I think it is the result of pressure from Washington. [Pick your own office of choice up there.]

[Arizona Carolyn]

I didn't understand why they would stipulate it could be from one of their guns when Christopher Sanchez himself testified they were not able to definitively tie the bullet to the agents' gun, but assumed it came from a Baretta since that is the gun all Border Patrol agents use.

That is a pretty far out assumption since that particular bullet can actually be used in at least four different guns. Without being able to match the patterns in that bullet to the patterns in either agents guns.

I would have never stipulated and would have made them prove it was one of the agents bullets. For all we know Rene Sanchez short Osvalda to make this look good... far out, I know, but anything is possible.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Pressure from the Mexican Government on Washington, DC is my guess. I am disappointed our Government isn't telling the Mexican Government to keep their people home and we have the right to defend our borders anyway we see fit...

[calcowgirl]

It would help if I got those annotations right. I accidentally wrote Vol 5, instead of Vol 6. #238 should have read: 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 6, p. 236-37)

[GOPPachyderm]

ping for later reading - thanks for posting.

[erton1]

The issue of the stipulation keeps coming up.My take on it is as follows: The defense team while preparing for the case realized that he was not a good witness. Since this appears to be the type of case where you want to put the defendant on the stand to testify, try to minimize the areas of cross by the prosecutors because you know they are going to grill him. If the stipulation is not entered into, the fear is that Ramos probably would have a difficult holding up under the cross and maybe could be caught in inconsistencies or lies. The stipulation is done in an attempt to minimize Ramos' exposure on cross. Its not a bad idea if it accomplishes the above. Unfortunately, Ramos got hammered on cross anyway and didn't hold up that well to the prosecutor,imo.In every trial there are decisions made which in hindsight can look either brilliant or boneheaded. This appears to be one of those decisions. Looking back at it, I wonder why they didn't take the plea bargain. In a trial of this nature and the the strategy that the agents were legally justified in their actions, the key witness for the defense is the defendant himself and his ability to sell it to the jury. It appears that the defense tried to get as good of odds for their clients testimony, rolled the dice and lost.

[Cold Heat]

It appears that the defense tried to get as good of odds for their clients testimony, rolled the dice and lost.>/I>

Yup.......That is why Bush cannot justify getting involved in Jury nullification at this stage in the process.

The appellate process needs to play out first. This was a legal tactical error and a jury statement as a result.

[FOXFANVOX]

I reread Johnny Sutton's response to his prosecution of these two agents. He states positively things that only Aldrete-Davila could know and presumes to infer actions that only the Agents could know. It sounded like a slick lawyer trying to defend a case that was far from straight forward.

I also reread a portion of the Investigative Report and it indicated that OAD attempted to surrender, then ran, then attempted to surrender again, and fearing something, ran again. [I think!] Now, Sutton, or one of his minions, said that a BP Agent can not hurt a person after that person has surrendered, but he was not hurt, i.e. shot, until after he fled. He was not shot while he was holding his hands up with "empty palms" [a favorite phrase of Sutton]. Nobody, especially Sutton, knows what OAD carried in his pockets.

The prosecution claimed that OAD's 4th Amendment rights were violated. I am sure some liberal court has ruled that way. But, I reread the Amendment and it says to me that it is supposed to apply to "the people". That would be us, American citizens [to anyone other than left leaning judges].

[Sue Bob]

"It appears that the defense tried to get as good of odds for their clients testimony, rolled the dice and lost."

Maybe I'm just getting old and tired, but it really sickens me to think that a trial is akin to a game of dice.

A defendant's future should not hinge on his verbal ability.

[FOXFANVOX]

Somewhere I read [sorry, I know not where] that Ramos had Tourette's Syndrome and that it is aggravated by anxiety. If that is the case, the decision to have Ramos testify seems even worse.

I have read much of Ramos' testimony and I agree with you that he did not do well. The testimony by Renee Sanchez seemed to be well coached. Brief "Yes" and "No" replies were the preponderance of his answers. No additional comments.

[erton1]

The 4th amendment applies to"the people" not "the citizens." Every court case I am aware of upholds 4th amendment rights for all people in the U.S. and does not make the distinction that you are trying to make. I have been involved in many cases personally where the person is not a citizen and there has never been a question as to whether 4th amendment protections applies to the individual.

[FOXFANVOX]

I am with you on being old and tired. But, my bubble was burst when OJ was found not guilty of those brutal murders despite strong evidence to the contrary. It really shook my confidence in the jury system. Unfortunately, I have no better alternative to offer.

Having been called to jury duty [but not selected] like "Charles", it was a bit of an eye opener. If I ever get prosecuted, I will concern myself as much with jury selection as I will with lawyer selection.

I will be quick to point out that the "best" defense is "no" offense! 8)

[FOXFANVOX]

No, I agree with you. However, I wonder if a Conservative judge would agree also, just curious.

My comment was directed at the intention of the Founding Fathers. While we can not know, only infer, I would guess that they wrote the Constitution for citizens.

[erton1]

I think this is the type of case, with either the defense strategy of "I didn't do it " or "I was legally justified in my actions" that the defendant has to testify to have a decent chance of prevailing with the jury.
Of course, if you feel strongly that his testimony will damage the case or that he will perjure himself, then don't have him testify. Then, I think you have to look very closely at the plea bargain.

[Sue Bob]

I agree with erton1 about the 4th Amendment applying to non-citizens. I believe that many of the rights enumerated in the Constitution come from God and not from the government. The 4th amendment is one of those self-evident rights that we have because we are men made in the image of God--not simply because we are Americans.

[erton1]

I find that my clients understand analogies to either poker or craps when I discuss an upcoming trial or pre-trial hearing with them.I am not trying to trivialize the trial or the process but rather putting it into terms the average person understands

[FOXFANVOX]

Thanks for the insight. Hindsight being 20-20, it does seem that the plea bargain would have been a better option. But, then perhaps, their perspective on what actually occurred caused them to go to trial. The lawyers must be feeling a little bad about the loss about now.

[Sue Bob]

I understand that YOU are not trivializing the process. The thing is your characterization is right! That's what bothers me.

Would you agree that prosecutors should be very careful about what cases they bring because it can be like rolling dice and they might convict innocent people because of a defendant's lack of ability to articulate? I still believe that the law should be a shield rather than a sword and the Rights of the Englishman and all that...

[FOXFANVOX]

I feel a growing tide against my view. 8)

Even if you two are correct [should I stipulate that?], there seems to be a suspension of the Constitution for the enemies we fight [i.e. al-Qaida]. Now given that the USBP is in a war against illegal immigration AND [to a lesser degree] drug interdiction, would this not be a gray area of Constitutional rights?

Rhetorical question. Don't want to stray too far from the transcript review.

[erton1]

I am sure the lawyers are feeling bad about the outcome of the trial,I always do after a loss in a jury trial in which they obviously thought they had a triable case. In my years of practice, one thing I found out that I did not learn in law school, is how important it is in a trial how good your client or primary witness in a case preforms on the stand, is an indicator of the outcome of the trial.