Border-agent investigator had tie to smuggler

worldnetdaily.com ^ | February 9, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

[demkicker]

You're very welcome. The word needs spreading!

[demkicker]

Someone is getting squeezed.

Yep, and thus far, the wrong people are getting squeezed/strangled. It's time for the choke holds to take place on the scum-bag traitors to our country that are hiding behind behind government jobs.

[demkicker]

Glen Beck & Lou Dobbs are the only ones worth watching on CNN. Dobbs is tolerable when rightfully slamming everyone in Washington about the illegal immigration issue. Otherwise, he doesn't float my conservative boat.

[Kenny Bunk]

Johnny Sutton is a conviction machine, which happens to be just what you want in a filthy, corrupt set-up like our border. He is a sharp lawyer who wants cases he prosecutes to come out his way.

The mysteries here are many: why he chose to bring this case to court; how they found Aldrete-Davila; how they suppressed the or re-engineered the testimony from supervisors and other agents on the scene (now, two witnesses are fired for lying?); the shocking lack of forensics and the mishandling of evidence (Sanchez took the bullet fragments and the perp... home????); and how they (legally) hid things from the jury and the defense, mainly the subsequent involvement and indictment (but not arrest!) of their immunized witness; the incestuous ties between BP Agents and their families to the witness; etc. etec,

One inconvenient, yet undeniable fact: the jury bought it and convicted the two hapless BP Agents. Another inconvenient fact: These guys were represented by counsel and have a union behind them ... and still they were found guilty.

So, based on we here on the outside know about this strange and growing stranger case, there are only 3 possibilities:
(1) These guys are really guilty of something.
(2) They had "My Cousin Vinny's" even dumber cousin as their attorneys
(3) Prosecutorial mis-conduct misled everybody

So we square the circle:

Why prosecute these BP Agents?

Cui bono Who benefits? Qui muneravitWho paid? My theory? (And why shouldn't I have one?) Compeán y Ramos interrupted somebody else's pay-day. And since the world has moved on to the fascinating question of the exact paternity of ANS's baby, they just might be SOL for a long time.

[Kenny Bunk]

depresso-ping

[calcowgirl]

depresso, with humor! The "ANS' baby" got a chuckle. I'm sorry to say that I knew what you meant!

[erton1]

The defendants were not forced to stipulate to anything. I don't know why they did, other than it was some type of trial strategy. To blame it on Sutton is simply ludicrous. If it was such a "question mark," why did the defendants stipulate to this crucial piece of evidence?

[erton1]

Sutton and his staff are very competent, and when they bring a case, they do it to win. DHS brought the case to the USA, with a recommendation for prosecution of the 2 agents. That is the procedure in these types of cases. The USA office looks at the department, whichever one it is, as a client bringing them a case. Once the office agrees to take the case and prosecute, each side plays their cards as best they can. Sometimes cases get dismissed, or a plea bargain is struck, or a trial is held. During the trial, if there is mishandling of evidence, lack of chain of custody or or other problems with the testing, it is up to the defense to object to the trial judge when the prosecutor offers the evidence. If the judge admits the evidence, over the valid objection of the defense, that could be reversible error. The defense must object to the admission of the evidence, otherwise any objection will be waived. I don't know the answer until we see the transcript. Any ties or prior relationships between the witnesses will not effect the admissibility of their testimony but rather can be brought out by the defense to attack the witness' credibility. I would hope that the agents can show some evidence on appeal of exculpatory evidence being withheld from them at trial. this may be one of their more promising avenues of appeal. I have a difficult time believing that the AUSA deliberately withheld the evidence, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility. It is such obvious error and even if the jury knew of the alleged 2nd drug shipment, I doubt that would have swayed the jury regarding these particular charges. Btw, I have heard of these allegations, have you seen any evidence that the defense now has in their possession relating to the allegation. The 5th circuit will not reverse just on speculation and if they make the allegation in their appeal I hope the some evidence of it's validity.

[erton1]

Most, if not all prosecutors in my experience, are hard nosed and litigate to win. I think that is one of the traits that is looked for when they are hired. I also think that is a trait that the public in general approves of in a prosecutor. Although I have never been a prosecutor, I have many friends who have been or currently are prosecutor's, and they are like anyone else, when they are trying a case, they believe in it, and obviously want to prevail. One question I have, did they step over the line? Frankly, I have not seen evidence of that yet. Btw, jury argument by either side is rarely grounds for reversal.

[Kenny Bunk]

Any ties or prior relationships between the witnesses will not effect the admissibility of their testimony but rather can be brought out by the defense to attack the witness' credibility

Yes, even Cousin Vinny could have handled that one, wonder why the BP Agents' lawyers couldn't.

I have heard of these allegations, have you seen any evidence that the defense now has in their possession relating to the allegation.

Oddly enough, the quietest people in this brawl are the defense team. In the midst of this riotous cauldron of seething speculation, they have done a very good job of staying behind the scenes! Actually, not a bad idea. They should save their talking for the appeal, for which I hope they are smart enough to get an appeals lawyer. Where is Dershowitz when we need him?

[erton1]

I think one of the problems as to why you are not hearing from the the defense attorney is that they probably have not been paid since the trial. I saw an insurgency motion on another thread that indicates that that money has been raised for the appeal but that there is not enough money to pay for the attorney's fees and expenses. They don't even have enough money to get a copy of the transcript.I would estimate that to get a top tier appellate attorney for this appeal in the Western District will be approximately $50,000 plus expenses. I have suggested in prior threads that a legal defense fund be set up but I have not seen any PR regarding it. If these hope to prevail on appeal, I suggest they start getting the appeal lined up. I don't do appellate work, but have worked with several attorneys who do and it is time consuming and difficult, especially when you are opposed to the gov't.

[erton1]

insurgency=indigency