Replies

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?