Posted on 01/24/2007 5:51:23 AM PST by NapkinUser
It might even be settled out of court, and we won't hear a thing about it..
This is a great argument for the defense: "Your honor, the conviction should be overturned because the three jurors on our side were stupid."
--He's still the leader of this country. He ought to try acting like one.--
Do you really expect the president to step in before the facts are heard?
Everyday almost people are dying in the streets due to gang wars. And lately almost weekly we hear of a cop getting shot.
Hi pot! Meet kettle.
LOL--and in the real world, Sutton is up 11 to 1, and Compean and Ramos are in prison.
Stay on one topic? This is FR. Surely you jest? :')
Because they believed what tehy were told and it was false.
Why wait for tomorrow? ...THREE Jurors:
Jurors say they were misled to convict agents
Inland Daily Bulletin, October 18, 2006EL PASO, Texas -- One man and two women on the jury that convicted two former El Paso Border Patrol agents of shooting a drug smuggler in the buttocks last year said they were misled into agreeing with a guilty verdict, according to a motion filed Tuesday.
Mary Stillinger, the lawyer for one of the agents, Ignacio Ramos, thought the jurors' statements should be grounds for setting the verdict aside and having a new trial for Ramos and fellow agent Jose Alonso Compean.
The three jurors, identified in court documents as Robert Gourley, Claudia Torres and Edine Woods, said they were still holding out on a guilty vote by the second day of deliberation.
"I did not think the defendants were guilty of the assaults and civil rights violations," Woods wrote in her sworn affidavit.
I saw that on TV once, maybe on Ally McBeal.
Last I looked, there are no transcripts of jury deliberations.
Ah, but apparently they didn't do "exactly what they were supposed to do". Other B.P. agents have had to discharge their weapons and have not had to face charges because they stayed within the law and followed the rules. If B.P. agents were finding themselves brought up on charges every year for firing their weapons, etc., then I could see why these two might have panicked. However, that is not the case.
That's why I said "jury instructions."
"Essentially, when they saw they could not convince the majority in favor of voting guilty, they conceded their votes, believing that they did not have the option to stick to their guns and prevent a unanimous verdict," Stillinger wrote in the motion.
Gourley said he thought the foreman was relating something he heard directly from the judge and when he found no mention on hung juries in the court's printed instructions, "I had no reason to doubt the foreman," he wrote.
After the trial, Gourley told the media that he felt pressured by other jurors who wanted to resume their normal lives after more than two weeks of trial. He also said he thought 10 years in prison was a grossly inappropriate punishment for the agents.
"Had we had the option of a hung jury, I truly believe the outcome may have been different," he said.
The third juror, Woods, wrote, "I don't remember exactly what it was that made me change my vote to guilty on these charges, but I know I was very influenced by my belief, based on the other juror's statement, that we could not have a hung jury. I think I might not have changed my vote to guilty if I had known that was an option."
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4508579
I have never seen a jury verdict overturned becase a juror was too stupid to stick to their convictions.
We have put the wrong people in jail. This in itself is a total out rage.
Some laws were meant to be broken...and if Ramos and Campeon broke one in an attempt to stop the perp..then we can and should make allowances.
After all, aren't allowances (excuses) made every single day for the poor Illegal immigrants who enter our country? Bush does it and he wants to pardon THEM..
Good Lord. My Inland Daily Bulletin article says two jurors (but it's older than yours). And I have a Townhall.com column written three weeks ago that says "two."
Don't forget Agent Juarez' testimony...
In fact, Border Patrol Agent Juarez, who was at the scene, testified at trial that he did not draw his pistol because he did not believe there was a threat. He also testified that Aldrete did not have a weapon and was almost to Mexico when Agent Compean began firing at him.
In their sworn testimony, Agent Compean and Agent Juarez both testified that Aldrete did have his hands in the air in an effort to surrender.
Thank you for posting this information. I do note that it says, "...other than deadly physical force", and "...whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense AND who in fact has committed such offense;"
If I am understanding this Statute correctly, a private person may use "physical force" but NOT "deadly physical force". And that the word, "and", is used in the sentence about "..he reasonably believes...".
Not only that, but it appears (emphasis on that word, please) that the jurors in the portion you cited thought the agents were guilty, but disagreed with the length of the sentence. Do jurors know the length of the sentence when deliberating? Honest question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.