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
.

[erton1]

I just can't agree with you. The actions and "errors" that the agents committed that night are going to be relevant and admissible in court to show the commission of the crimes alleged by the gov't, particularly the obstruction of justice and the assault. This true whether the actions could result in an administrative reprimand or not. What I think you are getting at, is you feel that the indictment is defective in that you don't think it alleges a criminal offense. You have made earlier posts on this thread that you think the indictment and charge are defective for this same reason. Was there a motion to quash to the indictment even filed by the defendants. Was error preserved for appeal or is it so fundamental error that it can be brought up on appeal for the first time.I don't see the 5th circuit find the either the indictment or the jury charge to defective. If the 5th does not quash the indictment I believe under a harm analysis that the probative value of the evidence is going to out weigh it's prejudicial harm.

[Iwo Jima]

Thanks for your remarks. I will keep your opinions as someone who actually practices in this area foremost in my mind as I continue to read the transcript.

As I read the charge, I think that asking the jury if the defendants committed the crimes of obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, etc. by failing to comply with an administrative requirement looks to me like reversible error. It would be in Texas state court.

[sumthinelse]

>>Supervisors testified that Ramos did not verbally report the shooting. Ramos testified that he did not verbally report the shooting.<<

Here is a document signed by Christopher Sanchez, one of the crucial prosecution witnesses:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54104

It was not Compean's nor Ramos's duty to write a written report. Since this document states that there were two supervisors at the scene who knew about the shooting, wouldn't that make Ramos's belief that the supervisors already knew about it true?

And why did the government not provide this document to the defense before Christopher Sanchez's cross examiniation?

[calcowgirl]

your "relevation" means nothing.....because lying in an opening statement gets you nowhere.

From a legal perspective, I understand your point.

As a law abiding patriotic citizen, I find it disgusting and unacceptable to have U.S. Attorneys LYING in a court of law. The Prosecution continued to push this throughout the trial. Yes, the Defense didn't do a good job correcting it, but that doesn't make Kanoff look any better in my eyes, nor JLGonzalez.

[calcowgirl]

I am not a lawyer...

Nor am I.

... the prosecution and imprisonment of Ramos and Compean does not seem like justice.

I totally agree.

[investigateworld]

I'm not an attorney, and haven't finished all the transcripts, but VOL. VII, pages 32 through 37 shows the judge was totally indifferent to the "second load".

Maybe that's the difference between state courts and Fed's? But if one of our 'snitches', payroll or 'working off a beef' got caught in another violation we had to disclose everything to the defense and usually dropped the case*. I hope the Judge has committed a 'reversible error' in making her decision here.

*But then we were just enforcing the law, not trying to ensure the election of a Democrat.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes. That does NOT say that anybody told the supervisors, nor does it say that the supervisors knew about the shooting.

Sorry.

You need to follow all the and/or clauses to understand what the memo says and does not say. The supervisors were at the scene of the shooting THAT DAY. It does not say they were there when shots were fired, nor does it say they knew shots were fired.

It does say that nobody who was there that day reported the incident.

This is of course just one early memo covering the investigation. As the investigation continued, they were able to learn a lot more about exactly who knew and didn't know what happened.

The result is reflected in the trial testimony.

Appeals back to early investigative memos at this point is a sign of the difficulty the transcript of the trial causes for people who want the facts to support their desires.

[Dat Mon]

Maybe its time to start applying a little systems methodology to the 'problem'.

In order to understand and model complex multidimensional systems, it always helps to break the problem down into its independent, component parts.

You start looking at dependencies, and construct what I think is critical here...TIMELINES (engineers would call these a type of State Diagram).

Is it possible, given the reports and transcripts we have now, to construct a detailed timeline of the events?

I would consider this 'problem' to be broken into the Shooting phase, including the events immediately before and after, the so called Obstruction phase, where the agents supposedly destroyed the crime scene, and finally, the Investigative phase, where the grant of immunity was issued, etc.

Im not concerned so much with the Investigative phase right now...I think the first two phases are key.

Constructing a detailed timeline, showing what people entered and left the scene at what point in time, and the time duration of the events, and their sequence, is IMHO, essential at this point to go further with this case.

I have an end goal in mind here...

This case, (though putrid when viewed in a larger context), was apparently carefully legally crafted, constructed, or 'engineered' as it were, so as to technically just barely meet the legal requirements of cologne.

But nobodys perfect...Im not sure they quite covered all the bases. ;0)

[investigateworld]

I agree, but this case has so many 'sealed' portions, it would be like chasing the wind.

I'm amazed that on 3-18 they were about to accomplish so much.

There is whole bunch of red flags, things not normally done in these Internal Affair investigation, i.e. the midnight arrests, the use of SWAT Teams, the double immunity, even after the second load.... It screams political interference and advocacy from someone high up in Washington, either Bush or Gonzales.

Alas, all my connections in the Federalies have retired too so I can't say for sure.

[Dat Mon]

You may be right...but the fact that a detailed timeline cannot be produced form the data that the jury was allowed to see SCREAMS at me.

The fact that critical pieces of the puzzle needed to construct the kind of timeline im thinking of dont exist or cant be viewed SCREAMS at me.

[investigateworld]

In homicide cases , we always produced a time line for the last hours of the victim(s) and all relevant witness, then tried to make sure everything matched. I.e. if someone turned up dead in Fontana, at 11 PM, everybody had to account for their time up to that hour.

In the years before Defense lawyers weren't required to give a witness list, it would always come to bite us in the a$$

Everything about this case is screaming the defense lawyers were simply not up to the task. Too many times, they just didn't hammer at the right moment.

Almost like they are zombie walking :^(

That contract doctor from the Army jumbled the scenario up and I can't see where Defense took control back.

I haven't got to the reason the DEA subpoenas were squashed (if they were).

[calcowgirl]

Here is an interesting little interchange, from a bench conference in Volume 7, p.129-130. The defense would have to pay to house OAD and arrange for him to get a new parole card to enter the US if they wanted to recall him to testify? Talk about rubbing salt on a wound! Also, anybody have any idea what a "permiso" is?

12 Ms. Ramirez on behalf of Mr. Compean.
13 They're telling me -- the Government is telling me
14 that I can't bring this witness back. So, subject to recall, I
15 can't say --
16 MS. KANOF: No, we didn't tell you that. That's not
17 what I told you at all.
18 MS. RAMIREZ: When the Government finishes --
19 MS. KANOF: That's not what I told you at all. You
20 represented to the Court that I said you couldn't call him
21 back, and that's not what I said. What I said, when we're
22 finished with the witness -- she has him under subpoena.
23 THE COURT: Okay. I heard.
24 MS. KANOF: And when the Government finishes with him,
25 the agents are no longer authorized to keep him in a hotel or
1  babysit him. The permiso that he has, he does not have in his
2  possession. The agents have it. What is provided for by the
3  permiso is that he be in their custody.
4  So I asked Ms. Ramirez, if she was going to want him
5  to stay, she was going to have to pay for him.
6  THE COURT: How about him being authorized? How about
7  him being authorized to stay is, I guess, the concern.
8  MS. KANOF: You know, I guess they would have to get a
9  new parole document.
10 THE COURT: Okay.

[calcowgirl]

Good ideas!

I've actually been creating a timeline as I read through these things. I'm up to 200 lines, but it is in no way complete. I have many big gaps at this point. Hopefully, it will shine some light on the whole thing when I'm done.

I haven't focused on any one subject matter, or tried to compare the different testimonies at this point. I wanted to try to read the whole thing before doing that.

"Requirements of cologne"? Does that mean smell test? (So far, I think they have met the requirements of Camembert) ;-)

[calcowgirl]

VOL. VII, pages 32 through 37

There are definitely some doozies in there!

[investigateworld]

Interesting use of the term Permiso. Mexico has a very centralized government (snicker) where a 'permiso' is required for everything.

Even logging tress requires a 'permiso'.

Sounds like she is acknowledging who the real boss is.

[investigateworld]

Uhhh make that 'trees'.

[calcowgirl]

TRANSCRIPT UPDATEFor anyone interested, Johnny Sutton revised his website to add the testimony of Arturo Vasquez that was not included in the first 18 Volumes released last week:

Here is a link directly to the PDF File - Vasquez%20Transcript.pdf

.

[Ajnin]

Im bothered by the fact that, according to the DHS report section I read, Compean first waives his Miranda rights, states in interrogation that he saw what he believed to be a gun...then later RECANTS (THEIR WORDS) and admits that it may have not been a gun..implicating himself and Ramos in the shooting.

I think this is one of the areas in which the defense team failed. What is really important in this case is weather or not a reasonable person under the same circumstance would believe that Aldrete had a gun and their life was in danger. It doesn't matter if he had a gun or not.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Thanks. That was an interesting read. It confirms what we suspected -- Vasquez did testify that he collected 5 shells and threw them in the water.

The transcript is signed and dated May of 2006, so it's quite possible the newspaper reporter for AP had seen this when he wrote that Vasquez testified he threw the casings in the water.

Vasquez also testified that he didn't tell the supervisor, that the supervisor showed up AFTER the shots were fired, and that he didn't hear anybody tell the supervisor about shots being fired.

His testimony also suggests that only Juarez was there before he was, although nobody asked him when the other agents arrived.

[Sue Bob]

OMG! Look at this.