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
.

[calcowgirl]

Anyone other than me have questions?

Yep, lots of them. It still looks like an incredible sequence of events.

Good catch on Exhibits 44 and 45! I had a hard time believing they could have performed all of the tests, concluding the bullet came from Ramos' gun, on the same day they retrieved the weapon from Ramos and filed the complaint (all March 18), especially since they couldn't begin the tests on the gun until they had concluded the ballistics tests on the bullet to determine the gun manufacturer (per agent's note on p. 15 of ROI).

Question: DPS Crime lab is in Austin? That puts a few more questions in my mind. What is that, about 600 miles away?

Question: Since the Affidavit stating the bullet was matched to Ramos' gun appears to have been false, and the bullet was the only physical evidence noted in the Affidavit upon which Judge Mesa concluded that there was probable cause to arrest Ramos, are the arrest warrants even valid?

[FOXFANVOX]

Right you are. Clinton lies to a Federal judge and loses his law license for a few years. These guys don't make an oral report [all that was required by the "guidelines"] and they are sent to prison for a decade. Real fair. I would rather break bread with these guys than Clinton any day!

[erton1]

The answer to your question depends on whether the ballistics tests were turned over to the defense. If the tests were not turned over to the defense,and they contain exculpatory evidence, that would be reversible error. If they were part of a discovery request for documents and not produced, again reversible error. Normally, I would say the above is non plausible, but in this case I have got out the habit of assuming anything. If the documents were produced to the defendants, then they cannot be be considered new evidence nor prosecutorial misconduct. So, if the documents were produced to the defendants, and they entered into the stipulation, I don't think the 5th will overlook the stipulation nor is it going to be grounds for reversible error. What error do find in either the indictment or the charge? Maybe I missed something, but I didn't find anything wrong with them.

[Iwo Jima]

Here's my last post for the night.

We were trying to figure out what our good buddy Rene Sanchez was indicted for. According to PACER, a Rene Sanchez was found guilty of distribution of and conspiracy to distribute marijuana on 1/03/07. Case No. 3:06-cr-00850-DB. I don't know if this is our Rene Sanchez or not.

Ironic, isn't it? I wonder if that was his shipment that ODA lost and that's why he had to be so active in getting revenge for the wrongful interference to his business and that of his superiors and partners.

[erton1]

I was under the impression the attorney's were retained, and paid for or at least partially paid for by their union or legal defense fund. Maybe calcowgirl knows for sure.

[calcowgirl]

I don't know anything about the attorney's.

[Iwo Jima]

O.K., this REALLY IS my last post of the evening.

If a defendant stipulates to something that is proven to be untrue and that truth proves ACTUAL INNOCENCE, will an appeals court just say, so what if everybody agrees that you are innocent, you stipulated yourself into prison.

What if you stipulated that you killed someone in self defense and it later turned out that the "deceased" is alive? Will the justice system just say "too bad," better luck next time?

I'll try to catch your reply later, but now I HAVE to go to dinner.

[erton1]

My wife is also requesting dinner. I will get back to you later also. Plus dinner will give me an opportunity to mull over your excellent question.

[FOXFANVOX]

Agent Renee Sanchez covered his background during his testimony [age 33, if I recall]. Sounded like a career low level bureaucrat. I read somewhere the account of the "other" Renee Sanchez. I feel fairly confident they are not the same person.

[calcowgirl]

I remember the testimony on the March 3 and Feb 28th conversations. • February 28, MIL first calls R.Sanchez saying OAD shot
• March 3, MIL takes cell phone to Mexico and connects OAD with R.Sanchez for first conversation.

R. Sanchez - Cross by Ms. Stillinger
Volume 6, p.243-44

17 Q. Okay. And I'm just trying to set up a time line. I guess
18 you actually talked to him on the -- on February 28th -- or,
19 I'm sorry. You talked to your mother-in-law on February the
20 28th?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You did some investigation. And I guess you talked to your
23 mother-in-law again on March 3rd, and that's the phone call
24 that we're talking about here?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Okay. And when you spoke -- okay. How -- how -- I
2 guess -- when is it that you spoke to Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila
3 for the first time?
4 A. On March 3, 2005.

[calcowgirl]

Yeah. Why haven't they made them public?

There were 93 exhibits listed to the DHS-OIG report. They only made public THREE!
Very curious, but not inconsistent with the government's behavior in this case.

[Sue Bob]

Johnny Sutton was just on America's Most Wanted concerning Gilmer Hernandez. He looks worse and worse, physically, with every appearance.

I wish to heck the reporter had gotten tougher with him. He already looked like he was ready to cry. Maybe he would have with the right questions.

I think, and hope, that his desire for a Federal Judgeship is thoroughly quashed.

[calcowgirl]

I remember reading about the other shootings discovered by C.Sanchez that had gone unreported. I thought there were about 5, not just the snake shooting. I don't remember where.

There is a bunch of testimony on OAD's profession that I saw when I scanned the documents quickly. Early on (at the first meeting with C.Sanchez), OAD tells him that he was acting as a mule that day because he needed money to pay for his mother's medical bills and because his commercial truck drivers license had expired so he couldn't work. He was asked to provide proof. During testimony, you find that he did apparently have a hazardous materials license of some kind (related to Pemex in some way), but his actual license had not expired. Also, we find that the mother's illness was supported by a doctors letter stating she had hypertension a year earlier. (NOTE: this is based on my recollection from a very quick scan of the text. I still need to reread it further). At one point, as "proof" that OAD actually was a commercial trucker, they refer to R.Sanchez's testimony about the 2004 "chance" meeting between R.Sanchez and OAD in Reynosa.

[calcowgirl]

Thanks! I think I can catch AMW at 9PM here.
I'm sorry to say that I'm glad he looks worse.
Every time I go back and read some of his twisted press releases, I get angry!

Between Gilmer, Campos-Ramos, and Santillan-Tabares, I think
he can kiss that judgeship good-bye, at least I would hope so!

[Sue Bob]

Santillan-Tabares? Is that the Death House case?

[calcowgirl]

Yes.

[calcowgirl]

I just saw America's Most Wanted.

Sutton seems to have toned down the rhetoric a bit.
He did look a bit tired or weary.

Thanks again for the heads up.

[erton1]

I think you would agree that the 5th circuit is fairly pro gov't regarding criminal appeals. I'm not an appellate attorney, but IMHO I think the 5th will have to be presented very compelling evidence of actual innocence. Based on the current record of appeal, I don't see it. The questions you have raised on this thread are interesting, I don't believe they raise to the level of actual innocence. I think the stipulation entered in this case is going to be difficult to overcome. I believe, based on the trial testimony, that Ramos told his attorney that he believes he shot OAD and that he also believes he was justified in his actions. I can think no other explanation for his testimony or the trial strategy employed by the defense.

[Sue Bob]

I want Rocksprings to file a grievance against Sutton for bowing to political pressure in his prosecution of Gilmer.

[Sue Bob]

erton1,

I sent you a personal e-mail. I don't know if you got it and just didn't want to reply. If I was too presumptuous in it , I apologize. If you didn't get it, please let me know.