Exclusive Guest Post For Polipundit: Free Compean And Ramos By Duncan Hunter

PoliPundit ^ | 3/5/07 | Duncan Hunter

[Sue Bob]

"Obviously, they have changed their story thru time and many have used that fact to try to say that their testimony was unreliable."

Ben, those are called prior inconsistent statements and are used to impeach credibility.

"But, as Vasquez pointed out in his testimony, they were given immunity and after being given that immunity, the only way that they could get in trouble was to commit perjury."

Perjury as defined by the prosecution. The prosecutors got Juarez in for a THIRD time before trial and threatened to tear up his proffer agreement because his story didn't fit the prosecutor's definition of reasonable.

Had a defense attorney done that, he or she would have been accused of witness intimidation.

You cannot necessarily believe that giving immunity is suddenly going to elicit truth. It is a benefit given in exchange for testimony which fits the prosecution's story.

I don't trust testimony that is given in exchange for benefits myself.

[Bob J]

"Ben, those are called prior inconsistent statements and are used to impeach credibility."

Which is the defense's job to do, which they did and the jury took into consideration when making their decision. Where's the problem?

"Perjury as defined by the prosecution."

No, perjury as defined by the law.

"The prosecutors got Juarez in for a THIRD time before trial and threatened to tear up his proffer agreement because his story didn't fit the prosecutor's definition of reasonable."

No, the prosecution didn't feel he had been completely forthcoming with what he knew because some of what he did say didn't make sense, like not seeing Ramos in the levee. Their is a big difference between outright lying (perjury) and not telling everything one knows but both could be considered a violation of his immunity agreement.

"Had a defense attorney done that, he or she would have been accused of witness intimidation."

No, the prosecution was doing their job by threatening to take away his immunity unless he told all he knew about that day.

"You cannot necessarily believe that giving immunity is suddenly going to elicit truth."

Nobody knows if a witness tells the whole truth until they are caught not doing so. The immunity agreement can be withdrawn if the witness doesn't tell the truth or all he knows so they have an incentive to comply.

"It is a benefit given in exchange for testimony which fits the prosecution's story.'

No, it is offered so the witness feels free to tell everything they know without the threat of being dragged in as some low level co-conspirator which would compel them, on their attorneys advice, to invoke their fifth amendment rights. Then the prosecution has no witnesses.

I don't get the problem with the immunity agreements. They are a standard tool used hundreds of times a day across the nation by the courts so they can get evidence

"I don't trust testimony that is given in exchange for benefits myself."

And was the benefit? Not being taken down because of their proximity to R&C's blundering? They lost their jobs, their careers and have had their reputations destroyed. I'm trying to figure out the tremendous benefits received by the other agents who testified.

[Ben Ficklin]

Juarez didn't have a lawyer?

[Sue Bob]

Yes he did. That makes no difference. A lawyer who sees his client about to get indicted is not about to tell the client not to cooperate. In that situation, the lawyer doesn't want to know the truth. He's only dealing with the fact that an indictment will cost his client thousands of dollars to defend--money a BP agent doesn't have. He's going to lay out the risks to his client if the client doesn't tell a story that is "reasonable" to the prosecutors and leaves it at that.

I really think that if the BP agents had had access to hundreds of thousands of dollars, they could have had expert testimony regarding the conflation of policy with law, etc., etc.

People without resources have no chance against federal prosecutors in cases like this. This is why so many attorneys don't understand why they didn't take the plea bargain that was on the table--whether they believed themselves to be innocent or not.

[SwinneySwitch]

BP 2 Ping!

If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.

[Bob J]

Not taking the plea bargain was their biggest blunder next to shooting an unarmed, non threatening drug mule at 100 yards.

I think R&C thought all they had to do was walk into court and say "I saw a gun" and they would walk.

Something I didn't see brought up (that I thought of while reading the transcripts) was when Ramos says he say OAD pointing the "black shiny object" at him and then fired, OAD was already at the edge of the Rio Grande...at least 100 yards away. How could anybody ascertain if someone was pointing at them, much less that they had a "black shiny object" in their hand at 100 yards?

Ramos must have x-ray vision.

[Sue Bob]

First, we will just have to disagree about immunity and it's impact as that is a very long topic. I simply refer you to a series entitled Win at all Costs which gives great insight into how threats by prosecutors have tainted testimony. Just google it. But regarding the below:

"Which is the defense's job to do, which they did and the jury took into consideration when making their decision. Where's the problem?"

The defense did not have the document I was referring to for impeachment purposes. It was withheld.

Insofar as my statement about perjury, the prosecution is the one that brings such charges. If they believe or want to believe that a witness is committing perjury or obstruction because they don't like the witnesses statement, they hold the power to make the charge. So, it is perjury according the prosecutor.

The Law employees no objective "perjury or obstruction of justice fairies" flitting around the courtroom or interrogation room notifying the prosecution or judge that someone is committing perjury or obstruction.

[HiJinx]

Border (Patrol) Ping!

[Ben Ficklin]

"People without resources have no chance"

People without a brain have no chance either, Susie.

[Carry_Okie]

Illegals are always a good place to start, especially if you are a candidate which has already abandoned the hispanic vote.

Nearly half of the hispanics in this country want a halt to illegal immigration, many are adamant about it.

[Bob J]

What document are you referring?

[Sue Bob]

The DHS document dated April 12 which seems to indicate that at the very least the supervisors knew of the shooting. The prosecution is arguing that it is inartfully worded--but that's their position which is debatable.

One problem for defendants is that even when prosecutors withhold exculpatory evidence--it's not always reversible error. Prosecutors play the odds sometimes.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

I guess you agree that bombing Christians for the Al-Qaeda backed KLA drug runners and jailing border patrol agents for shooting an illegal alien drug runners in the butt is good for for America.

The most they should have gotten is 2 weeks at a gun accuracy school.

[Ben Ficklin]

I didn't serve on the jury. Why don't you ask them?

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

No but it seems like you are on every thread involving Invaders and are on their side.

Do you make money off of these INVADERS or the poison they sell our children?

[Dante3]

BUMP for Hunter.

[texastoo]

Thanks for you input. You have explained a lot.

[CharlesWayneCT]

And yet almost 2/3rds of them voted for democrats who wanted amnesty for illegals. Weird, isn't it?

[Ben Ficklin]

You are like many here. You don't want to read the transcripts or have anyone tell you what is in them.

Shoot me if you want to, but I am just the messenger.

[Ben Ficklin]

I think Carry is wrong.

All the polling data I have seen indicates that hispanics support tough border enforcement at a higher percent than Carry says they do.

But the hispanics do not support enforcement only.