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
.

[Sue Bob]

In a case like this, do you know if it is usual practice for criminal defense lawyers to have their own experts do ballistics?

[Iwo Jima]

I am inclined to think that Ramos told his lawyers that he fired one shot but did not hit the guy, and I think that that is highly likely that Ramos truly believes that. I also think that it is likely the truth.

I don't think that you can take a slug like that and keep running, cross a river, and then be seen walking or even limping away, leaving no blood behind on either side of the river (Mexican authorities checked south of the river and found no evidence).

[Sue Bob]

What about the issue of not giving Davila complete testimonial immunity? Mary Stillinger argued to the judge that the immunity he did have would not protect him if he admitted he was carrying a gun--as well as for other drug related activities. She argued that the not immunizing him for other drug activities permitted the prosecution to unfairly characterize him as a naif about the drug trade.

[Iwo Jima]

I can only go by what I read and hear. But it appears to me that more often than not the defense does not hire their own experts to check the prosecution's experts.

This was made painfully apparent in our crime lab scandal in Houston, where DNA tests were never run but the expert just made up results that fit the prosecution's case, and similar outrages. It only came to light when they were ordered to retest things in bulk. Any of these problems would have been known if a defense attorney had done anything to question the tests. But when asked about it, they seemed puzzled by the question, like, "Why would I question the prosecution's expert?"

[FOXFANVOX]

Good stuff, IJ. My reading of Renee Sanchez's testimony came up with the first call in Feb. [28+/-] from the MIL. Second call is the one you noted.

It is incredible that Exhibit 44 and 45 are not included in this transcript as they are critical to the case.

Many questions!

[Iwo Jima]

I was going by the OIG report, and it says the 1st call was 3/03, but you say that trial testimony was that the 1st call was on ~2/28. Interesting! I don't know if that is a material discrepancy or not. Phone records would prove exactly when these calls occurred, so why not get specific?

[Sue Bob]

How lazy!

[erton1]

These are questions either the defense should have asked or they already knew the answers. We don't the answer, only the defendants and their attorneys know. Are you inferring that the agents should allege an incompetent counsel point of error in their appeal? Another question, do you think that this area of will add to the likelihood a successful appeal or the granting of a pardon? I ask this last question because it appears to me that all the gov't has to do is point to the stipulation as defense to to your argument. Now that I have read the transcript, I now understand why Tony Snow asked that everyone read the transcript. It is not helpful, even if GW was inclined to do so, to grant a pardon.

[Iwo Jima]

It does seem just awful, doesn't it? But keep in mind that unless you are one of the big guns getting huge fees from wealthy clients, criminal defense lawyers are greatly out-numbered, out-gunned, out-financed and just about out-everythinged. I would not be a criminal defense lawyer because I could not stand doing a half-way decent job, and so I would go BROKE spending money out of my own pocket to finance a decent defense.

[Sue Bob]

I don't think the transcript is particularly helpful for appeal--but I think that the pardon should be considered on other grounds--such as looking at the totality of the circumstances leading to the prosecution etc.

I have to say that I think if I had been a juror, I would have drawn different inferences than did this jury. Unfortunately, as you know better than I do, appellate courts don't reverse convictions based on juror's inferences unless they are terribly unreasonable.

[erton1]

That was Stillinger's argument,I am not convinced that the argument is correct. Even if correct, I think it is harmless error rather than reversible error. The fact that ODA received immunity for his testimony was presented to the jury, I think will be enough for the 5th circuit to find harmless rather reversible error. Just MHO, but I would still include the argument in the brief, plus it does kind of dovetail with the exclusion of evidence argument for the 2nd drug smuggling incident. It may be a winner, as I have stated earlier , you never what an appellate court will hang their hat on.

[Iwo Jima]

I don't know enough to voice an opinion on whether an incompetent counsel defense would get anywhere.

But maybe you can answer me this: IF the ballistics tests actually turn out to exonerate Ramos in that the bullet taken from ODA could not have come from his gun, could Ramos on appeal cite prosecutorial misconduct (fraud, evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, etc.) and have the stipulation set aside, if not formally, at least have the 5th Circuit overlook it in the appeal? Would that be new evidence of the type that would lead to a new trial? How would you play that card?

I think that the chance of a successful appeal is good for a variety of reasons -- the indictments, the charge, the basic stupidity of saying that failure to abide by an administrative policy is a criminal act, that failing to file an oral report is concealment of a document, that use of a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime of use of a deadly weapon adds 10 years to what would otherwise by a 1 year sentence -- these are just ridiculous results that given the redhot nature of this appeal, the 5th Circuit is going to be very happy to find grounds for reversal, or so it appears to me.

[Sue Bob]

I am going to pray that you are right about the grounds for appeal. I believe that these guys were wrongfully convicted.

[FOXFANVOX]

Vol. 6: p 305: Chris Sanchez reads from the BP Guidelines book given to him by defense. He is asked to read the critical part: what is the penalty for failing to report firing your weapon. Response: it says from written reprimand to a five day suspension. Kanof objects to this.

Now this is the nub. The agents are accused of firing their weapons and not reporting it. The manual indicates the [minimal and maximum] penalty. And that they did not commit a crime but violated a guideline. Shooting at a fleeing illegal aside, this was one of the crimes that the Agents were charged with and the prosecution objects to discussing it. And the American people are justly upset that US gov't can exaggerate such a modest penalty into 10+ years in prison. I believe Iwo Jima or someone listed the shorter terms given to real killers.

Kanof's next objection [Vol 6: p 308+/-] is to the defense asking if Sanchez had any other BP Agent say they had fired their weapon without reporting it. Now apparently this referenced an Agent who shot a snake, BUT Kanof had made a big deal earlier about how any discharge including "cleaning your gun" had to be reported. Now the defense points out in Chris Sanchez' own investigation, at least, one of the Fabens BP had fired his gun and not reported it.

This stuff may appear trivial but it goes to the heart of the prosecution's case that Ramos and Compean were acting far outside of accepted standards.

Reading this transcript is depressing. The drug dealer at one point is referred to as a truck driver in Mexico. Kanof fought letting his actual crime that day in, but it apparently did come out. So far, I have not run across other instances of his chosen profession being mentioned.

[erton1]

In cases where some type of physical evidence is an issue in a case, forensics experts are normally retained to test the evidence,whether it is hand writing or bullets. Believe it or not, it is sometimes easier to get an expert if you are a court appointed att'y rather than retained, because all you have to do is petition the court for the authority and funds, and I never had a judge turn down my request for fear that a denial creates reversible error prior to trial, which is the last thing he wants. When retained, you have to get the expert fee from the client, which is problematic at times, or even convince the client of the necessity of the expert.

[Iwo Jima]

Up to this point, they have had just about everything go against them. They couldn't buy a break.

But it now looks like things are finally going to go their way. They are now going to have congressional committees with subpoena power question under oath the US attorney, the prosecutor, the witnesses, the experts, and anybody else whose name pops up. We ARE going to know what the baliistics show. The outrages of their trial is going to be paraded on national TV. Even things that those in the know just take as a given, as SOP, will be made known to a public that will be aghast at how easily almost anyone can be thrown in prison if they get crossways with the wrong people.

How many people have that going for them? It may be something of a first. Neither the DHS, DOJ, nor the 5th Circuit is going to like living in this fishbowl, and the easiest way out is to find reversible error.

[FOXFANVOX]

If the rumored misguidance of two or three of the jurors who indicated they felt "pressured" to reach a guilty verdict is true, is that a basis for a retrial?

[Iwo Jima]

Interesting. Does it appear to you that these defense attorneys were retained and not appointed? That's how it appeared to me.

[Sue Bob]

I really think that there is something rotten in our Federal system. The Martha Stewart, Milken and Abramoff cases make me believe this.

I am tired of the elitist lawyer view that the system is something holy that only lawyers can understand. As far as I'm concerned, it's a cartel. I don't think that there is sufficient transparency and accountability for prosecutors or courts.

Of course, I'm somewhat of a libertarian who thinks that anything the government touches ends up stinking.

[Iwo Jima]

You need to read the charge of the court and see the actual jury questions. I can't think where those are right now but I'll get back on that.

In the meantime, just let me tell you that the jury was told in essence that failure to comply with an administrative requirement was a crime, that not making a verbal report which would have resulted in a written document being prepared is the same as illegaly concealing a document, and so on.

The whole thing is Kafkaesque. And Clintonesque.