The jury obviously found them not guilty of trying murder Aldrete-Davila. But Sutton needed that bogus charge to "piggyback" 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c).
So far, reading the transcripts I know I would have hung the jury.
YOU SAID..."But Sutton needed that bogus charge to "piggyback" 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)."
Good point.
This statute, as I read it, would imply that the crime of violence (primary charge), can stand on its own basis, independent of the action of using a gun while committing it.
This must be true, else the logical premise of the statute goes away.
Example..I could rape (primary charge) a woman, be caught, and prosecuted for rape. If I committed the crime on Federal property using a handgun, I could in addition to the penalty for rape (primary), be assessed an additional ten years for using a gun (aggravating)while commiting the violent crime (primary).
The statue language makes plain that the intent is to add the two penalties (primary + aggravating)together to get a composite sentence.
In this case, however, Im confused, because only one action took place..the act of firing a gun.
The Feds say it was assault...the agents say it was self defense.
Ramos, in particular, had no other contact with the perp, he simply came upon the scene, and thinking his partner was in danger, he fired at the perp.
Using the logic of the statute, he would be guilty of using a gun (aggravating) while using a gun (primary) in a crime of violence.
Am I making sense here?
I think it relates to what you are saying.
In other words...if the two agents had encountered the perp...had beat him severely, and, while incapacitated, they also shot him, they would be guilty of assault (primary), plus the shooting (aggravating).
They would have been convicted of Attempted Murder...as you say, and the statute would have been appropriate.