Transcripts of Trial - Border Agents Compean and Ramos

Strange, isn't it. The gov't is painting their/our guys as criminal killers but tries to cloak this illegal drug smuggler in a cloak of innocence and sympathy.

No wonder this gov't can't protect our borders.

361 posted on 02/18/2007 3:56:26 PM PST by FOXFANVOX (God Bless the Military!)

It's a double whammy effect against the BP Agents.

As to protecting the borders, one has to wonder if they are even trying to.

362 posted on 02/18/2007 4:16:25 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

To: erton1; calcowgirl; FOXFANVOX; Iwo Jima; Sue Bob

YOU SAID...."I don't understand your post."

I'm the poster, and I'm here to help you....

You said...."Were these agents guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The jury answered that question with their verdict."

You're comment begs the question of why we are even discussing this case at all, pouring over transcripts, etc. Lets just all can this thread and go on over to a Rudy! RUDY!! RUUDDEEEE!!!!! thread. Justice has been served, by definition... (someone will have to explain to me why we have an appeals process in our Justice SYSTEM...perhaps you can list the criteria to be met in order to grant a new trial...I would be most interested)....

We have sworn statements of three of the jurors, who stated that they were somehow given incorrect instructions by a jury foreman, causing them to vote for GUILTY when they felt the verdicts were NOT GUILTY....this concerns me...for a variety of reasons...it speaks to the judges jury instructions, the defense attorneys closing statements...and the caliber of the jurors as well.

One might be led to ask, for example, if info about the smugglers past history (family statements that he had been smuggling since 14, always known to have carried a gun (assuming it wasnt hearsay of course!))..., his second apprehension with smuggled drugs AFTER his immunity deal, would have been sufficient to sway additional jurors, who perhaps already did not have a high opinion of the smuggler, ...all this may have swayed them to the point that they doubted the validity of the prosecutions case and grant of immunity... to the point that they might consider that the smuggler was lying when he stated that he was unarmed, or that he didn't have a shiny object...such as his cell phone with him when he turned and faced Compean....it may have persuaded them to give two officers (who already had compiled an impressive arrest record...specifically....PRIOR DRUG BUSTS)...the benefit of the doubt.

That kinda stuff....

We will never know...with this jury...perhaps the next one...if there is a next one.

YOU SAID..."You question hearsay being admitted. There are over 25 exceptions to the hearsay rule.....if a hearsay statement is not properly objected to, the testimony is admitted and any error is waived. It is not up to the judge to exclude testimony or evidence unless a proper objection is lodged by the opposing party."

I HAD SAID..."From the beginning of this case...Ive been wondering about the ability of the BP lawyers to mount an adequate defense...either due to their own incompetence...or due to an unspoken silent partnership between the judge and the prosecutor in what evidence was admitted, and how the trial was conducted."

I think you understood my comments well enough...as I stated there are questions regarding what evidence the jury was allowed to see primarily the second drug bust of the smuggler, questions regarding the competency of the defense attorneys (did they prepare the witnesses adequately, etc..

YOU SAID..."I can't put any credence in your thoery that the judge was in cahoots with the prosecutor. That is truly tin foil hat without ANY evidence."

You cant put any credence in what I DIDNT say...at least not in the overly simplistic way you have stated it. Lets read my statement again...

I HAD SAID..."This judge, being a Bush political appointee, may (consciously or subconsciously)...have been overwhelmed by the case and simply deferred to the US Attny politically connected to the man who nominated her to her position."

Im simply asking here whether the judge had the technical capabilities, OR PERHAPS strength of character, to challenge a man who was a close POLITICAL associate of the man who had nominated her to be a judge. Is she overly POLITICALLY SENSITIVE...is she willing to take political heat and go against Suttons office...in the process possibly put her own future career hopes in limbo. These thoughts may have flashed through her mind consciously...or they may have been pushed back into her subconscious. People are complex animals.

All this is quite a bit different from me suggesting AS FACT that an active, premeditated conspiracy to deny Due Process to these agents was involved...implying that the judge and Sutton, as you put it.. "were in cahoots".

Is an active conspiracy likely...perhaps not...but I cant say that its out of the realm of possibility either..and neither can you...we simply dont know....thats why we are on THIS thread...and not the Ohhh RUDY my RUDEEEEE threads (I may head on over to headbang later)

(perhaps I should also have raised the possibility that Suttons and the judges hotline numbers were programmed in each others personal Blackberries...or maybe it was collusion after a particularly hot tryst at the local motel after court...maybe they invited the smuggler too...who really knows right?)

;0)

I have merely posed questions...possibilities...hopefully these will be answered as people study these transcripts.

I think your reply to my posts reaffirms my point that a competent Defense attorney must be present to make sure that the right evidency to exonerate his / her client gets admitted into the record...they must raise an objection to hearsay evidence, but then a fair minded objective JUDGE, one who is not results oriented, (as this judge MAY HAVE BEEN) must ULTIMATELY decide if the evidence is admitted.

I have yet to find the time to study the transcripts myself...so I will rely for now on expert analysis, and excellent comments and questions from attorneys such as yourself...and others..as well as calcowgirl...who is dong yeomans work...and should be commended!

YOU SAID..."I have now read portions of the transcript( mostly Ramos, Compean) and it is obvious that the defendants did not make very good witnesses."

Again...this gets to my point of questioning their legal representation...if these guys had apparently (as implied in the DHS report) incriminated themselves before the trial...to the point that preliminary investigations and ballistics had convinced Suttons office to proceed to trial with the charges of Attempted Murder, AND...Suttons office had built a solid case based on real forensic evidence...then why of why did they refuse a plea deal...and put their lousy witnesses on the stands...ill prepared?

Would you have done this?

BTW...is your background / specialty civil law...or criminal law?

363 posted on 02/18/2007 8:06:57 PM PST by Dat Mon (Apply the same standards to THIS Justice Department as you once did to the Clinton Justice D.)

I'm glad that you were able to get that off of your chest.

364 posted on 02/18/2007 9:16:18 PM PST by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")

If it doesnt make any sense ...have at it mon.

365 posted on 02/18/2007 9:22:57 PM PST by Dat Mon (Apply the same standards to THIS Justice Department as you once did to the Clinton Justice D.)

This case is interesting in both facts, charges, legal issues and the defendants themselves(being LEOs). My comment regarding the jury find them 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt' was based not only on the verdict but also on a review of the transcript, especially the testimony of the defendants. I don't believe the 5th circuit will reverse the verdict based an insufficiency of the evidence grounds, which means that they are of the opinion that the evidence is sufficient to find them guilty.
Regarding the 3 jurors, it is not unusual in a contested jury trial to have split in the jury during deliberations. It appears the jury deliberated 1 1/2 to 2 days, again not unusual considering the amount of charges and 2 defendants. My understanding is the jury did not send out a note to the judge advising her that they were deadlocked nor did the judge have give them a 'dynamite charge' encouraging them to reach a verdict. The jury instructions regarding how the jury should conduct their deliberations appears fairly boilerplate. Based on the case law from the 5th circuit, IMO, I believe these allegations rise to a reversal of the verdict. In every case when a jury has factions, one side is stronger and usually prevails. Unfortunately, the weak sisters were on the defendants side. If there had been notes indicating a deadlock or further instructions from the judge, I feel this point of error would be stronger. I don't know how the defense attorneys closing statements can be error, it is not possible for the defendants to now complain of closing stat
ements by their attorney caused error.
One area that I feel is one of the agent's best point error(s) is the issue of subsequent drug incident. The fact that was not an arrest or indictment in that incident hurts the defendants. I don't feel the 5th is inclined to the position that the gov't controlled the above. Remember this is a very pro-gov't appeals court. I do think the defendant's appellate attorneys are going to hammer on this issue in their appeal brief and bring out the points you are making. I don't think the immunity deal is reversible error. The transaction was disclosed to the jury several times and somewhat developed by the defense.
I honestly don't believe the federal judge was influenced by the prosecutor or politics, either consciously or subconsciously. Federal judges are appointed for life,because the founding fathers wanted to take political pressures away from the judiciary. For most Federal judges, the lifetime appointment is the pinnacle their career and they are not worried about future career hopes or worried about taking political heat. She is on the bench for the rest of her life and is not going to be impeached over evidential rulings in this case. The thing that is going to happen as far as she is concerned is that the case is reversed and gets to hear it all over again. I know several Federal judges and have practiced before probably 2 dozen over the years and I do not know one who cares who appointed them to the bench. Most people who become federal judges are very competent and have "technical expertise" to be a judge. This judge was an appointment of GW, who has appointed very good judges, imho.(I have not practiced before this judge nor know her. I have a friend who is a colleague of her's and
speaks highly of her)
I don't want to venture an opinion as to the competency of counsel. I have commented on this thread in other posts as to what I think the trial strategy was and the effectiveness of that strategy. Decisions are made that in hindsight can either look brilliant or boneheaded. It does appear that they played the cards they were dealt. Unfortunately they had clients who did not make good witnesses. My experience has been that when your client and primary witness is a poor witness and can't sell your defensive theory to the jury, the odds of you prevailing in a jury trial diminishes. I think after pre trial preparations and coaching, the attorneys realized that the agents, Ramos in particular, made poor witnesses. IMO, that was the reason for the stipulation, in an effort to reduce the exposure on cross exam. In hindsight after reviewing Ramos' pathetic performance on cross, I probably would not have stipulated, and made the prosecutors prove up the evidence. At least there may have been a point of error for appeal.
I don't know why they did not take the plea bargain.It is ultimately the client's decision whether to accept a plea bargain or not. These were LEOs and a plea bargain probably would force them into another field, which may have been a consideration. It could be that they strongly felt they were justified in their actions. I have discovered in my practice that LEOs often see things in black and white and they didn't think they would lose. For whatever reason, they decided to roll the dice with the jury, and lost.

366 posted on 02/18/2007 11:02:46 PM PST by erton1

To: erton1; Dat Mon

correction- Based on the case law from the 5th circuit,IMO,I believe these allegations DO NOT rise to a reversal of the verdict.

367 posted on 02/18/2007 11:12:49 PM PST by erton1

World Net Daily on 13 Feb ran a story on a letter from Mexico that they had gotten copies of which demanded the US take action against the border incidents that were putting their Mexican citizens at risk. No comment from WH or from Sutton's office. Surprise, surprise.

368 posted on 02/19/2007 9:14:04 AM PST by FOXFANVOX (God Bless the Military!)

For those who missed it, the Washington Times, today, ran an article on the former US Border Agent David Sipes [who was acquitted in his retrial]. They pointed out that Sutton's prosecutors had:

"...prosecutors gave the illegal alien and two others additional inducements not disclosed at the time for their testimony, including Social Security cards, witness fees, permits allowing travel to and from Mexico, living expenses and free use of government phones."

I wonder if the prosecutors will lose their license to practice law and go to jail. After all, they did cover up what they used to induce their witnesses to testify, which led to the wrong conviction and loss of job, wife and home of former Agent Sipes'. Will he get $5 million dollars for his losses. Don't hold your breath.

369 posted on 02/19/2007 9:23:26 AM PST by FOXFANVOX (God Bless the Military!)

I went to law school with Jack Wolfe and am a little familiar with the case. This case took place in the southern district rather than the western district of Texas. Different USA and office and trial court. This was a case where the trial judge granted a new trial after the original trial and never made it to 5th circuit. It is my opinion that the judges in the lower valley are generally somewhat more sympathetic to defendants than in the western district. ( save and except one judge here in SA)To withhold evidence from the defense, as what occurred in this case, is prima facie reversible error. Although the subsequent drug incident was disclosed to the defense in the Ramos-compean case, the trial judge did not allow evidence to go the jury regarding it.In my limited review so far, IMHO I believe this is the most promising area of the appeal.

370 posted on 02/19/2007 10:00:32 AM PST by erton1

Bless, you my friend. I was getting discouraged. I know what you are saying is a long shot, but it does provide a glimmer of hope and, barring some startling revelation, that is about all that is sustaining me right now.

See we do appreciate your critical evaluations. 8)

371 posted on 02/19/2007 10:11:04 AM PST by FOXFANVOX (God Bless the Military!)

BTW, It is my understanding that the 2 AUSA's who pulled that stunt in the valley are no longer with the USA office.

372 posted on 02/19/2007 10:32:49 AM PST by erton1

Dat Mon--Thanks for posting all that. It is obvious you feel passionate about this case, as do I (or I wouldn't be spending so much time on it). With all of the finer points of law at issue, it is possible everything was done 'by the book', so to speak, but in totality, I still don't think this was justice-in-the-making or fair-play. I intend to keep reading and analyzing to try to understand it all and I hope others do as well. Your queries are very helpful to me in that process, as are the responses that point to the various laws at issue.

373 posted on 02/19/2007 11:35:17 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

Thank you for your post, as well. Many, many things to ponder.

374 posted on 02/19/2007 11:45:40 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

That may have also been true in this case; we may never know.

IIRC, Rene Sanchez's first recommendation as to OAD was for him to go to the Mexican consulate. We know he was there on March 16--the day he signed the immunity agreement. They may have been contacted earlier, as well. We also know that a few days earlier, the DSS and Mexican officials aided in a search of the scene where the incident occurred, both on the U.S. and Mexico sides of the Rio Grande. How all of this came about is a bit murky to me since the testimony of Chris Sanchez was less than complete on the subject, IMO.

375 posted on 02/19/2007 11:50:29 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

Youre welcome.

Let me know if I get too long winded in the future.

Ive said my peace here, and then some I guess.

;0)

376 posted on 02/19/2007 12:10:55 PM PST by Dat Mon (Apply the same standards to THIS Justice Department as you once did to the Clinton Justice D.)

No problem at all. FR doesn't charge by the word. ;-)
(If they did, I'd be in trouble!) lol

377 posted on 02/19/2007 12:37:01 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)

To: Iwo Jima; calcowgirl

Your timeline doesn't agree with calcowgirl's at this post

Her timeline has the 2nd complete ballistics test done on march 18th.

378 posted on 02/19/2007 1:08:11 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

The man with the bullet in him still had the bullet in him weeks later, and walked into the office to have it removed.

379 posted on 02/19/2007 1:10:16 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

And you wouldn't likely find blood evidence in the dirt weeks later. Nor would you find it in the water.

You could have found it the day of the shooting, if the agents had bothered to report the shooting so it was properly investigated.

380 posted on 02/19/2007 1:11:13 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794