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]

There is a case on this point which I cannot locate at the moment. I don't think, although I cannot be sure, that it is a Supreme Court case, but I don't remember what circuit it is from.

Anyway, the case involved a drug courier who was a non-citizen living in another country (maybe Colombia). He had come to this country for just one day, by commercial air travel IIRC, when he was apprehended.

It was held that coming into this country for a single day for the sole purpose of delivering illegal drugs does not make him one of "the people" of the United States and therefore the 4th Amendment did not apply.

I am pinging Congressman Billly Bob and mrsmith to see if they recall the case that I am talking about.

If this case is as I remember it, it is precedent that applies to that OAD who was in this country just for a few hours solely to deliver illegal drugs.

[FOXFANVOX]

I think the trial against Libby reflects a Special Prosecutor gone awry. Not to mention our own Duke case here in Raleigh, NC where the prosecutor was so errant that he, Nifong, is being considered for disbarment, or some such, by his fellow lawyers. The prevention of the abuse of power requires constant vigilance

OK. I gotta back to the books. Talk at you all later.

[Arizona Carolyn]

OJ didn't testify and was found innocent.... it was the civil trial where he did testify they found him guilty. Body language is a lot in any trial, but reading the transcripts, If I was the lawyers I think I would not have put either man on the stand, I would not have stipulated the bullet was from any agents gun and would have used my closing argument to point out there was enough doubt in Chris Sanchez and Rene Sanchez' testimony to not find my clients guilty.

[Iwo Jima]

either the defense strategy of "I didn't do it " or "I was legally justified in my actions"

You are overlooking a third option, one which has far more jury appeal and is consistent with most of the known facts: "I was legally justified in shooting and I did shoot but I did not hit him."

[Sue Bob]

I'm no constitutional lawyer and I don't really know what you mean by suspension of the Constitution for al-Qaida. That said, and I will probably provoke some Freeper hell-fire down on my head, I have some real problems with the Patriot act and the idea that the President has the right to suspend habeas corpus. I know Lincoln did it--but he is hardly my favorite President.

I would just ask this. Many of us are very suspicious about the conduct of the federal government in this prosecution. In fact, I don't trust government agencies any further than I can spit. Many conservatives feel that way.

So--why do we accept hook, line and sinker that they are treating all the detainees accused of terrorism here in the States and elsewhere with fundamental fairness?

So rain away on my head fellow Freepers!

[erton1]

I agree with you. But realistically, today a prosecutors office is like a large law firm, in which an agency will bring a case to them to file and prosecute. The intake office will cull the obviously bad cases or those without legal basis to prosecute. But the real prosecutorial discretion does not occur until much later in the process when it is often to late to "dump" a case. The district attorney in my county has recently set up a pre-indictment docket for cases to reviewed with the defendant and their attorneys and I have had several cases dismissed, for various reasons, during this process that would have probably been indicted and the expenditure of unnecessary resources would have occurred by both the defendant and the state. A real balancing test must occur between the protection of our constitutional and god given rights and the push for efficiency in the administration of justice.

[Iwo Jima]

I agree with you, but let's not hijack calcowgirl's excellent thread, shall we?

[Sue Bob]

You said:

"The district attorney in my county has recently set up a pre-indictment docket for cases to reviewed with the defendant and their attorneys and I have had several cases dismissed, for various reasons, during this process that would have probably been indicted and the expenditure of unnecessary resources would have occurred by both the defendant and the state."

He sounds like one of the good guys--but I certainly hope that his purpose is more than the utilitarian goal of cutting expenditure of resources. I hope that he is also attempting to serve justice.

The focus on resources by prosecutors and other lawyers (and courts) demonstrates the influence of Benthamite-utilitarian ethics on the law. I'm afraid that we lawyers are becoming mere technicians rather than servants of justice.

[erton1]

Actually, the third option I thought of the "create a reasonable doubt" defense. Given what we know now, that may have been their most viable defense. I don't know what evidence or testimony was available to the defense to mount such a defense. The problem that I see in your 3rd option, is that you would still have to put Ramos on the stand. After reviewing his testimony, and granted I wasn't there to see his demeanor, I would have kept him off the stand. I think he was very damaging to the defense.

[erton1]

The DA is a female. I live in Bexar County.

[erton1]

OJ's criminal was an anomaly because it was one the few cases where the criminal defense attorneys had as many resources as the prosecutor. I would love to try a case with Dershowitz faxing me questions to ask a witness in real time, or have Barry schenk doing the cross exam on the DNA evidence. With those resources they did very good job of creating a reasonable doubt in the juror's minds. I don't think these guys had the resources available to OJ.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Not only did they not have the resources, I have doubts they had the right attorneys for this case. There was a lot of Chris Sanchez' testimony I read where they should have objected, and did not. The prosecutor walked all over these guys through their attorneys.

[Iwo Jima]

Here is a ballistics timeline which I put together.

2/17/05 Date of Incident

3/03/05 Rene Sanchez’s MIL in El Paso calls him in Arizona to report s call from OAD’s mother that OAD has been shot. R Sanchez sends MIL to Mexico with her cell phone so R Sanchez can talk to OAD. R Sanchez talks to OAD. R Sanchez searches BP computers. R Sanchez files report with supervisor. Report is sent to Chris Sanchez with DHS OIG in DC.

3/04/05 Investigation started.

3/16/05 Bullet removed from OAD by Dr. Warme in El Paso with C Sanchez present.

3/17/05 C Sanchez takes bullet to Brian Carter at DHS. [Exhibit 29 to OIG report, copy not attached to public version]

3/18/05 Ramos’s weapon seized and submitted to Texas DPS crime lab. [Exhibit 32 to OIG report, copy not attached to public version]

3/18/05 Carter gives bullet to J. J. Correa at Texas DPS crime lab in Austin. Correa writes letter to Carter stating that the bullet was “fired from a barrel with 6 lands and groves inclined to the right” and that this could include 40 caliber weapons such as Browning, Beretta, H & K & Ruger pistols. No mention of bullet having come from Ramos’s or any particular weapon. [Exhibit 43 to OIG report, copy not attached to public version]

3/18/05 Criminal complaint filed. Affidavit of unknown person [name redacted in OIG report] swears that ballistics testing confirms that bullet came from Ramos’s weapon.

4/13/05 Ballistics report. [Exhibit 44 to OIG report, copy not attached to public version]

10/06/05 DPS Forensics Report [Exhibit 45 to OIG report, copy not attached to public version]

11/20/06 Report of investigation.

Anyone other than me have questions?

[erton1]

That is the problem when you want present a defense that tries to "create a reasonable doubt." It often requires much more in the form of expert witnesses, investigators, physical evidence and testimony to present that type of defense to the jury. I don't know if the agents had the resources to prevail.

[Sue Bob]

Yeah. Why haven't they made them public?

Also, why did they file the criminal complaint on the basis of the March 18 report?

What are your questions? I'm sure I'm missing a lot.

[erton1]

Do you think Ramos told his lawyers that he fired a shot at OAD and either he thought he hit OAD or that he did hit OAD?

[erton1]

I am sure they were made available to the defense.

[Sue Bob]

I agree. I mean, make them available to the public to quell unfair speculation.

[Iwo Jima]

1) If they had Ramos's weapon by 3/18, why didn't Correa see if he could match the bullet to that weapon on that date?

2) Why did Mr. Anonymous (whom I am betting is Chris Sanchez)swear in his affidavit on 3/18 that ballistics confirmed that the bullet came from Ramos's gun when it did not?

3) If they had a ballistics match as of 3/18, what were the 4/13 and 10/06 reports all about?

4) Why aren't any of these reports made available to the public?

5) If there is a ballistics report that says that the barrel of Ramos's weapon has "6 lands and groves inclined to the right" (whatever that means), why hasn't that been waved around like a red flag?

6) Who performed that 4/13 and 10/06 tests? If not Correa, were they having to shop around? Did Correa give them a bad report?

Even if there is a later ballistics report matching this bullet to Ramos's gun, it sure looks like that took a long time to determine that AND that they were under huge time pressures to get these guys indicted regardless of the facts. [Marching orders from somebody big?]

[erton1]

After reading the transcript, I am of the same opinion. The only area that I see as a possible success in the appeal is whether the trial judge improperly excluded the testimony regarding the 2nd "drug smuggling incident" I may have missed something, but it looks like the factual sufficiency grounds are out and I don't see anything else in the pre-trial or trial transcripts to show much hope on the appeal. There are some sealed documents, so they may yield something. At this point I give the appeal a 10% chance of success.