Replies

As to the stipulation regarding the bullet, and maybe this will answer IJ's question. The stipulation at that point specifies all of the testimony which would have been elicited proving the bullet was Ramos's bullet.

The parties agree and stipulate that the Governments would enter into evidence through the testimonies of the following witnesses, Colonel Winston Warme, medical doctor; Special Agent Christopher Sanchez, Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector General, DHS-OIG; Special Agent Brian Carter, DHS-OIG; Ms. Elizabeth Munoz, crime lab evidence technician, Texas Department of Public Safety, DPS; Joseph James Correa, forensic scientist, the third, firearms and tool marks examiner, the following evidence marked for identification purposes as Government's Exhibits 39.

The parties stipulate that the Government would call Mr. Correa and would qualify him as an expert witness in the field of firearms and tool marks identification.

The parties stipulate that a proper chain of custody was maintained, Government's Exhibits 34 and 35.

As to the bullet fragment, Government's Exhibit 36, and that the evidence would establish through the testimony of Mr. Correa that Government's Exhibit 36 is, in fact, a .40 caliber bullet.

The parties stipulate a proper chain of custody was maintained, Government's Exhibits 37 and 38, as to the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39.

The parties also stipulate that Mr. Correa's testimon would establish that the .40 caliber bullet was expelled from 24 the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39.

The parties also stipulate that Government's Exhibit 39 was functional and operational as designed. Also, the parties stipulate that the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39, was issued to Ignacio Ramos by the United States Border Patrol for his use.

Lastly, all parties agree and stipulate that the .40 6 caliber bullet was surgically removed from the upper right thigh area of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila on or about March 16, 2006.

They then correct the date because it was actually 2005, For completeness, here's the signatories:

Signed and agreed to this the 21st day of 23 February 2006, Johnny Sutton, United States Attorney, by Jose Luis Gonzalez, Assistant United States Attorney; Stephen Peters, attorney for Defendant Ignacio Ramos, and Mary Stillinger, attorney for Defendant Ignacio Ramos, and Ignacio Ramos, Defendant.

So to answer IJ's question, they had testimony from a ballistics expert that the bullet came from Ramos' gun, and they had established a valid chain of custody for both the gun and the bullet.

This section of the testimony thus disproves the speculation that there was a problem with the chain of custody of the bullet. At least in the minds of every person involved in the case, including the defendant and his two lawyers.

Why would a defense counsel stipulate to such crucial information for which there is no evidence? Even if you think that it is true, make them prove it. Much helpful information can come out of cross-examination of the "experts."

Here in Houston we have had serious problems with our crime lab just making stuff up. Time after time, it turns out that the defense attorney never even bothered to challenge what the prosecution said the results were. They just accepted as true whatever the prosecution chose to tell them was done and the results. Then they pressured their clients to plead guilty based on the "certainty" that such "incontrovertible evidence" would send them to jail. Sometimes, not only were the test results not as represented, there was never even a test done!

Far too many criminal defense attorneys are just too lazy -- intellectually, physically, and morally -- too get adversarial with the prosecution.