Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ContemptofCourt

ComtemptofCourt,

It's interesting that I came to the exact opposite conclusion as you did about Ramos's testimony. I thought that Kanof appeared to be attempting to confuse the jury with ridiculous suggestions about how Border Patrol Agents work. She was critical of the pursuit and the fact that Ramos chose to engage Aldrete-Davila for safety reasons before going to Compean's aid. She even brought up "the children."

I haven't yet gotten into Compean's testimony, but I do not believe that conflicts in testimony about who was where and when are unreasonable given that this entire incident lasted mere minutes and the agents were focused on the perp instead of each other. In fact, it confirms to me that the agents didn't get together to make up a story to hide a bad shoot.


64 posted on 02/14/2007 3:40:17 PM PST by Sue Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]


To: Sue Bob
Vol 13, page 20: Ramos can't recall the language of the policy regarding shootings, even though he is a firearms instructor for 5 years and taught the policy.

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.

100 posted on 02/15/2007 6:10:02 AM PST by ContemptofCourt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson