pg 45: He didn't hear anyone yell "hit him", even though Compean and Juarez did.
pg 62-63: Testifies about a "gun exchange," but then says that he can't distinguish between the sound of a .40 caliber pistol and other pistols...even though he is a firearms instructor.
p 64: States he did not see Compean picking up casings.
p 82: His reasoning for why he did not report the shooting is very, very hard to believe....he "had alot on his mind."
In one of these volumes, the judge admonishes the attorneys (particularly defense counsel) for focusing so heavily on the pursuit, noting that it was not key to any of the charges, and that the attorneys were losing the jury. When an attorney is saying "look over there," and failing to focus on the crux of the issue (her client is getting killed on cross), then juries tend to believe that something is not right.
In my years of practice, one axiom rings true: no matter how good or bad the evidence is, if the jury doesn't like your client, you are going to have a bad day. Ramos and Compean just do not come across well, for whatever reason. These things do happen...every witness I've ever had on the stand that has been well prepared has come up with some "fact" or "memory" that they didn't recall through years of questioning. Trials are stressful...so you just move on and try to fix the damage. Here, neither Ramos nor Compean seemed very well prepared, and their attorney did little on redirect to fix the damage done on cross. And the cross on Compean was a rather poor cross at that.
I agree that they didn't seem well prepared. I couldn't understand why Stillinger was focusing on the pursuit either. It didn't tie to anything in the opening statements and it didn't seem relevant to me. I do think that Kanof was trying to make Ramos seem like a cowboy on the road--but the details about where they were and how they went through town lost me. I suppose that Kanof was trying to prove that they broke the rules of pursuit and how dangerous that was. But why did Stillinger focus on that?
I agree with you about what juries do when they don't like your client. People in El Paso don't like Border Patrol Agents, anyway.
As to recalling specific language in a policy--I empathize with Ramos. I got put on the stand in a Bad Faith lawsuit years ago and was asked to recall the words of a statute that I had been dealing with. I blanked.
I could have explained away each and every one of the points you raise given the heated and short circumstances. I thought that the defense attorneys did a mediocre job. They didn't make the events come alive. They didn't hilight the things that could cause witnesses to hear and see things differently in circumstances like the ones at issue.
Do you agree that this record gives little hope of reversal? I don't think that an appeal based on the verdict being against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence will have much chance of success.