Prosecutor accused of hiding smuggler's 2nd drug bust [Compean and Ramos]

World Net Daily ^ | February 1, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

[CharlesWayneCT]

It didn't use the word I used to describe what was done. Do you think it is wrong to call what he had a temporary visa? Do you know of other ways you can get permission to come into this country, other than with a "visa"?

Or are you complaining that Sutton didn't use the word to describe it? I never used a QUOTE regarding what Sutton said, so I wasn't claiming I was using the exact words he used to describe it.

As I explained more than once, my response was to someone who falsely claimed that the Drug Smuggler was still here.

Look, if you and others know so much about the case, and are so interested in the truth, why don't YOU correct a couple of the posters who are on your side and make entirely false claims, rather than attacking those of us on the other side for trying to keep the record factual because we don't use the words you like?

[calcowgirl]

why don't YOU correct a couple of the posters who are on your side and make entirely false claims

I believe I have. Have you?

rather than attacking those of us on the other side for trying to keep the record factual because we don't use the words you like?

Asking for a source is not attacking.

[erton1]

whether you like it or not, granting immunity in a criminal case is NOT bribery. It is an action that has been sanctioned by all the courts in this land. I don't know where you get your information from or whether you are just arguing for the sake of argument, but you are just flat wrong on what you consider to be bribery. I suggest you understand the terminology before you start your argument.

[erton1]

whether you like it or not, granting immunity in a criminal case is NOT bribery. It is an action that has been sanctioned by all the courts in this land. I don't know where you get your information from or whether you are just arguing for the sake of argument, but you are just flat wrong on what you consider to be bribery. I suggest you understand the terminology before you start your argument.

[dennisw]

I'll bet all this is true. I've seen prosecutors with warped agendas and Johnny Sutton is one of them. These accusations have the ring of truth and make Sutton's entire case suspect. Open borders policies are corrupt and un-American. And Johnny Sutton has made himself the darling of the OBL

[dennisw]

whether you like it or not, granting immunity in a criminal case is NOT bribery. It is an action that has been sanctioned by all the courts in this land. I don't know where you get your information from or whether you are just arguing for the sake of argument, but you are just flat wrong on what you consider to be bribery. I suggest you understand the terminology before you start your argument.

So you're fine with a drug dealing Mexican getting immunity twice for bringing drugs into the United States so that two Border Patrol agents can be thrown in prison for ten years

[dennisw]

I've been amazed on here about how many people just blindly support two people that they have never met and have no idea of their integrity. Yet they seem willing to invite them over to date their sister. Not me. They started this entire ordeal off with some pretty poor decisions.

I always support our BP agents over scumbag drug dealers from Mexico who have to given immunity twice to make a case against the Border patrol agents

I root for the home team. Not the Mexican team. Not the Mexican drug smuggler team.
That's how I see justice. And from all I've seen both of these BP agents are fine family men. One has already lost his house to foreclosure

[dennisw]

Do not forget the real villain in all of this: Alberto Gonzalez, who is rapidly proving himself the worst Attorney General in U.S. history. Republicans should support a move to impeach Gonzales immediately.

His claim to fame being he has "known" GW for  a long time. Same as that pathetic Harriet Miers nominated to the Supreme Court. Gonzales is a loyal stooge. Will do whatever GW wants. Johnny Sutton is no stranger to both

[erton1]

I am not the prosecutor in this district. I have cases in against his office. An issue that is subject to much debate here in the Western District of Texas is actions by LEO's, whether federal, state or local. The evidence at the trial showed an egergious obstruction of justice. The USA had a very weak case against the illegal alien because of actions of BP agents, so he was left with no option. I understand that the BP agents turned down a plea bargain that would have gotten them probation, and instead rolled the dice with a jury trial. Unfortunately for them they were convicted of the most serious count which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. The sentences by the judge was on the low end of the sentencing guidelines. I think this case a prime of the injustice of mandatory minimums which tie the hands of judges in sentencing.

[dennisw]

The case should never have been brought in the first place. Worst thing done should have been for both BP agents to be fired. Bottom line stinks here and that bottom line is a Mexican drug dealer gets off the hook twice just so that an overzealous prosecutor can throw two fine Border Patrol agents in prison.

Our borders are in total anarchy and this is what Johnny Sutton chooses to prosecute? Something is rotten.

[dennisw]

The USA had a very weak case against the illegal alien because of actions of BP agents, so he was left with no option.

No option to do what? I don't follow your logic. Because a drug dealer could not be prosecuted, two Border Patrol agents had to be?

[Dante3]

Evidence indicates it is Johnny Sutton who is corrupt, possibly a sociopath. AMW just presented a synopsis of the incident - obviously there never was a case against the two Border Patrol guards except for a possibly three day suspension.

Johnny Sutton's link to drug dealers needs to be investigated.

[dennisw]

Sick, isn't it!!!

[calcowgirl]

Unfortunately for them they were convicted of the most serious count which carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.

Actually, they were acquitted of the most serious charge, Count 1: ASSAULT with INTENT to commit MURDER.

That would have brought them life in prison--or the death penalty.

Thankfully, Sutton wasn't successful in bringing that one home.

[erton1]

Laws were broken by the BP agents. A case is brought to him by HSD. prosecution is recommended by the department. The USA gives immunity in a case that is non prosecutable because of the criminal actions of the individuals that your client wants to prosecute. USA brings an indictment. BP agents turn down plea bargain. USA does his job and BP agents get hammered with club fed. Nothing is rotten, this is the way the criminal justice system works. The agents rolled the dice, lost, and now want our pity because they are BP agents. There was another case here last month in the Western District with another LEO (san antonio p.d.) who was convicted of obstruction of justice and got 26 years. I don't see everyone doing petitions for a pardon. BTW< the USA office considers other gov't agencies to be their client.

[erton1]

You are correct. The most serious count they were convicted of carried a mandatory minimum of 10 years. the other counts they were convicted on did not carry a mandatory minimum. and added little to their sentences.

[Sue Bob]

"whether you like it or not, granting immunity in a criminal case is NOT bribery. It is an action that has been sanctioned by all the courts in this land." The establishment may not define it as bribery--but do you deny that it provides an incentive for false testimony? Also, have you read this, The Causes of Wrongful Convictions. "The sentences by the judge was on the low end of the sentencing guidelines. I think this case a prime of the injustice of mandatory minimums which tie the hands of judges in sentencing." If this was so out of the control of anybody, why did the prosecution fight the defendants' Motions for Downward Departure and Variance so hard?

[erton1]

I have been involved in many sentencing hearings in Federal Court, and have rarely seen the USA not fight a request for downward departure by the defendant. I have only seen this when the defendant has been cooperative in the prosecution of other criminal cases. Plus the judge was hamstrung by the mandatory minimum laws and it is my understanding that the PSI did not reccommend an downward departure for the other offenses. I agree that a grant for immunity does provide an incentive for false testimony and coercion by prosecutors. Unfortunately, the judicial and legislative branches of gov't. have not outlawed it's use in criminal trial. It's use is permitted as long it is disclosed to the defense, the defense is allowed to disclose the grant of immunity to the jury and make the same argument to jury as you are making here. It is then up to the jury to decide what effect the immunity has on the witness' testimony and credibility. If you wish to change the law on the use of immunity in criminal cases, you will have to go to the legislative branch to effect that change.I wish you luck.

[Kenny Bunk]

See me after the appeal.

[Sue Bob]

"I have been involved in many sentencing hearings in Federal Court, and have rarely seen the USA not fight a request for downward departure by the defendant. I have only seen this when the defendant has been cooperative in the prosecution of other criminal cases."

That makes sense. But, Sutton shouldn't be acting as if he had no role in the length of the sentence in light of the filing of the responses to the motions for downward departures.

Had the prosecution agreed with the downward departures, would that have not given the judge the ability to sentence outside the guidelines?

What is a PSI? Is that the probation entity? I thought that the enhancement was only for the charge regarding committing felonies while possessing a gun. Are you saying that the other charges also impacted the sentence?