Posted on 02/01/2007 9:01:42 AM PST by calcowgirl
Suspect in case against border guards given free pass on charges
The judge in the high-profile case of two U.S. Border Patrol officers imprisoned after shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler allegedly sealed key testimony and issued gag orders preventing the defendants, their families and trial participants from discussing the smuggler's involvement in a second drug bust – for which he again was granted immunity in order to testify against the agents.
According to Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol, and reliable sources close to the case, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila was apprehended in an October 2005 drug bust with 1,000 pounds of marijuana. That incident followed the Feb. 17, 2005, confrontation with Ramos and Compean in which Aldrete-Davila drove a van illegally across the Texas border into Mexico with 743 pounds of marijuana. Ramos and Compean were convicted for their actions surrounding the shooting of drug smuggler and sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison respectively.
Ramirez told WND that Aldrete-Davila had been positively identified in a drug bust just prior to the Ramos-Compean trial, which began Oct. 17, 2005.
"When Johnny Sutton learned that Aldrete-Davila was involved in this second bust, he panicked," Ramirez said. "If the public learned that Aldrete-Davila came back to the United States a second time with another load of marijuana, Sutton was sure that would blow his case against Ramos and Compean."
The prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, previously has denied there was a second arrest. But sources say Aldrete-Davila technically was apprehended for the second incident, and not arrested, on condition he testify against Ramos and Compean.
Yesterday, Sutton's spokeswoman, Shana Jones, declined to answer specifically whether there was a second border incident of any kind involving Aldrete-Davila. She told WND the attorney's office is standing on its original statement that there was no arrest, no indictment and no prosecutable evidence.
According to reliable sources close to the case, Sutton asked Judge Kathleen Cardone to seal the records involving Aldrete-Davila's participation in the second drug bust. Subsequently, Aldrete-Davila's name was expunged from the law enforcement records concerning the October 2005 incident at the request of Sutton's office.
Cordone's gag order in the trial covered any discussion by the attorneys or the families of the officers concerning Aldrete-Davila's second drug bust.
WND was told that Sutton withdrew a Resident Alien Card, commonly known as a "green card," from Aldrete-Davila after the October 2005 drug bust. The green card originally had been given to Aldrete-Davila as an inducement to return to the U.S. and testify as a star witness against Ramos and Compean under a grant of immunity from prosecution.
WND has learned the witness who identified Aldrete-Davila in the second drug incident was identified as "Toquinto."
Toquinto is the surname of Border Patrol agent Rene Sanchez's mother-in-law, as noted in the Department of Homeland Security Memorandum of Activity report filed by DHS Special Agent Christopher Sanchez, dated March 14, 2005.
As previously reported by WND, Renez Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila grew up together in Mexico. The information that Aldrete-Davila was the Mexican drug smuggler involved in the Feb. 17, 2005, incident with Ramos and Compean originated in a phone call between Sanchez's mother-in-law, Gregoria Toquinto, and Aldrete-Davila's mother, Marcadia Aldrete-Davila.
Prosecutor Debra Kanof of Sutton's El Paso office told the defense counsel and the court at the Ramos-Compean trial, without the jury present, Aldrete-Davila was pleading a Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself in "any other criminal activities."
The indictment against Aldrete-Davila for the October 2005 drug incident reportedly was sealed at Sutton's request in order to preserve Aldrete-Davila's credibility as the government's star witness against Ramos and Compean.
Sanchez testified at the Ramos-Compean trial as a character witness for the drug smuggler, with whom he had grown up in Mexico.
WND has asked several Ramos and Compean family members to verify this account, but all declined, expressing fear that Cardone would then have reason to prosecute them for violating the gag order.
Both wives told WND that Sutton would prosecute them for contempt of court and would not hesitate to put them in prison if they talked about any information covered by the gag order.
Ramirez said that after Sutton learned about Aldrete-Davila's second drug bust, he "made sure nobody would ever be able to prove anything about it."
"Sutton took back the green card he gave Aldrete-Davila as an inducement to testify against Ramos and Compean under immunity, and he refused to give Aldrete-Davila any more medical care at government expense at the Army hospital in El Paso."
Ramirez asserted that on the day the jury was being picked, the prosecution asked for postponement of the trial – not because Aldrete-Davila needed additional medical surgery in El Paso as the prosecution claimed, but because the prosecution needed time to cover up the second drug bust.
"Aldrete-Davila never was taken to El Paso for another operation," Ramirez told WND. "It was all a lie. All Sutton wanted to do was to seal and then expunge the criminal records on the second drug bust, so nobody would ever be able to prove anything against his drug smuggler witness. If the second drug bust had come out to the jury, the jury would never have believed a word he said."
At Sutton's request, the Ramos-Compean trial was postponed from its originally scheduled October 2005 date to February 2006.
In his Jan. 19 interview with WND, Sutton claimed he would have been willing to prosecute Aldrete-Davila if he could prove a second offense.
"If I had a provable case that Aldrete-Davila had committed other crimes, I could prosecute him."
WND called Cordone's office but was told the judge would answer no questions from the press about the Ramos-Compean case.
Her office refused to tell WND when or if a trial transcript would be available, or how much a copy of the trial transcript would cost.
The judge's office also refused to explain why the court was taking nearly a year to prepare and release the transcript.
Huh? I asked him for support for his statement:
This isn't a question of evidence vs. innuendo--I was simply asking for a source for his statement (see post 52). He cited an undefined, unlinked "statement" by Sutton. Given the media blitz coming out of DOJ, that isn't exactly supporting his comment.
I followed your link.... that is one of the many press releases, as I mentioned, that does not say anything about a temporary visa. I searched and found (The text "Visa" was not found Thanks anyway!
If it easily proved wrong, do it.
HUH? What are you talking about???
So attorneys never lie. Why didn't I think of that.
What evidence have you seen to begin with. You haven't seen anything. The only thing you know is what you have been told by USA Johnny Sutton.
I'm not the one spreading hysterical (and I mean that in the classic sense) hyperbole and using fear as a tactic. Nobody is a 'fan of Open Borders'.
Debate intelligently or go to a chat room.
Reality: Aldrete was not given a green card which would enable him to have permanent legal resident status in this country. A military physician in the United States removed the bullet from Aldrete because it was an important piece of evidence and because the law requires the government to render such assistance. In order to have the bullet removed, meet with federal investigators and to testify in court in El Paso, he was entitled to come into the United States on a limited basis within a limited geographical area and only for those purposes. The last time he was legally allowed to enter the United States was in February 2006.
You are correct, it does not say the word "visa", which is why you didn't find it looking for that word. He was granted a temporary visa, which allowed him to be here for a limited time, place, and purpose. Sutton did not use that term in the answer.
This was his answer to the false claim that the smuggler was given a green card, giving him free legal access to our country.
Attornies are human beings, and therefore are capable of, and do, lie.
A defense attorney has more leeway to lie or hide the truth in his public pronouncements; but no attorney is allowed to lie in a courtroom, and an attorney working for the state will be fired if they are caught lying.
Ramirez and Bonner will suffer NO penalty if it turns out they have presented only half the truth, or are making things up. They didn't swear an oath or take a deposition, and our freedom of speech includes being allowed to say false things.
If they lie about a personal matter with Sutton, I suppose he could sue them for libel, but as a public figure Sutton would have a high bar to cross, and it would cost him a lot of money in attorney fees, so I doubt he would bother.
But if any defenders of the agents finds a single public statement Sutton made that is provably false, he will probably lose his job.
So yes, absent ANY evidence whatsoever that he isn't truthfully expressing the facts as they are known, I have every reason to trust him over a union mouthpiece who is paid to spin the story to his client's advantage.
A pardon and Sutton's firing would help some, but not the neighbors of Sutton's pet. They are stuck with him living in the US and selling drugs to their kids.
My response was that the smuggler wasn't living in the U.S., because he was only allowed here for the trial.
I'm sure you knew that, you knew the poster had made a false statement, and you should have been able to understand I was correcting a mis-statement of fact.
Instead you responded as if what I was saying was false, implying agreement with the poster who falsely claimed the smuggler was given legal status to stay in the country.
I never would have guessed from your response that you were questioning the technical use of the term "temporary visa" (which I believe IS the correct technical term), because WHAT you call it is a meaningless diversion from the fact that the smuggler was NOT living in the U.S..
A jury found them guilty, but it's how the prosecution led them to the verdict that is the problem and will doubtless be the subject of future appeals.
How the jury was instructed is a problem.
The witholding of even potentially exculpatory evidence is a problem.
The failure to disclose that the key government witness was
immunized against charges for a subsequent crime is a problem.
The strange relationship between Sanchez, an officer of the law and key witness for the prosecution, and Aldrete, a known criminal, is a problem.
The fact that Sutton knew Aldrete was the driver of the vehicle through fingerprint evidence and did not disclose it is a problem.
Sutton did the same thing the 2 agents did. I.E., it will be found that his actions in bringing the agents to trial screwed up any chance of an irreversible successful prosecution, just as their actions screwed up any chance of prosecuting Aldrete for smuggling drugs.
BTW, why Sanchez is not under investigation because of his extremely close ties to a known drug smuggler and border violator is a mystery to me.
Where do you get this stuff? Sutton does NOT have fingerprint evidence tying the smuggler to the Van. You have completely misunderstood WND's report (which is how they wanted it).
There is no "strange relationship"< but hey, way to stick up for the fine men and women of our Border Patrol.
You have not seen the transcripts (I know, not your fault), so you have no idea what the directions to the jury were. You have the word of jurors recollecting after they were pressured by the defense to make right the travesty of long prison terms.
YOu also have no evidence of withholding evidence. Again, until you see the transcripts, you don't know what evidence was presented. So far as I can tell, the lawyers for the agents haven't filed an appeal claiming withholding evidence (but that would be the appropriate venue for that type of action, not asking the president for a pardon).
The key government witness was NOT immunized for a subsequent charge. There is no evidence the jury was NOT told of the immunization for the purpose of the trial, either. There is dispute over whether the witness was even detained for another event, much less arrested or indicted, and NO evidence immunity was offered -- in fact, Sutton has to investigate to see if the incident even occured. If it even happened, it is likely that some locals were tricked by Daviles into thinking he had immunity.
Sutton did not "do the same thing" the agents did. The agents shot a man who they did not know was a criminal 15 times while he ran away from them. Then they destroyed the evidence, failed to report the shooting, and filed a false report about the incident.
Drinks on one of us after the appeal at Thathcher's.
Johnny Sutton needs to be investigated. He sure stuck his neck out for a drug dealer.
Well said.
So, in other words, the source that you said was the source didn't really say what you said it said... but is instead your conclusion/opinion. Thanks.
Which had nothing to do with my question.
I'm sure you knew that, you knew the poster had made a false statement, and you should have been able to understand I was correcting a mis-statement of fact.
Please don't put words in my mouth. That has absolutely nothing to do with what triggered my question. You stated something as fact that I had not seen anywhere and I asked for a source. It was a simple one-word question--should have been a simple answer.
Instead you responded as if what I was saying was false, implying agreement with the poster who falsely claimed the smuggler was given legal status to stay in the country.
You were saying something unsupported... an opinion. That's fine, just say so. Again--my question was completely independent of any other post on this thread, or elsewhere. Quit telling me what I am implying as you are totally off base.
And you don't think prosecutors do this all over the country every day.
WND is beating this dead horse until they run out of excuses to defend these two. Some Freepers are going to keep at it a little longer.
Of course they do, and politicians take bribes. That doesn't make it right.
Are you saying that offering immunity is a practice that needs to outlawed? You might as well throw out every prosecution of any organized crime figure. you think they are hanging around with the nuns?
Of course bribing a witness should be outlawed. The same with bribing politicians. Just because the government does it doesn't make it right. Do you need to be bribed to testify if you witness a crime?
So you think the government can't make its case without bribing its witnesses? Wouldn't it be a lot easier too if the government just assumed guilt and made the criminal testify? That damned fifth amendment makes it real hard to convict criminals too. (Sarcasm)
Maybe the government needs to reexamine the laws it is trying to enforce. It is the laws against what consenting adults do that is perverting the justice system.
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.