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

PoliPundit ^ | 3/5/07 | Duncan Hunter

[pissant]

I would like to thank Polipundit and Michael Illions, who has been helping out my campaign, for giving me the opportunity to write a guest post about the injustice that has been done to two of our border guards, Jose Alonso Compean and Ignacio Ramos, both of whom have been sentenced to jail for more than a decade each.

Now certainly our border patrol agents are not above the law and it is not acceptable for them to abuse or mistreat illegal aliens. That being said, the Border Patrol is America’s first line of defense against the terrorists, drug smugglers, and gangs who try to illegally enter the United States. Acting as the first line of defense for our country, the men and women of the Border Patrol are in a very dangerous position. Every day they risk their lives guarding our borders.

I have read the relevant portions of the trial transcript. Agents Ramos and Compean have a version of the facts that is different than the drug smuggler’s. However, it is not necessary to determine whose testimony is more believable (although I find the Border Agents’ testimony more credible than the drug smuggler’s) for this reason: even if you believe the drug smuggler’s testimony that he was slightly wounded while escaping to Mexico, his wounding cannot, by the greatest stretch of criminal justice, justify the 11 and 12 year prison sentences given to Ramos and Compean. The average convicted murderer in America spends less than 8 1/2 years behind bars. That means that Ramos and Compean have been given murder sentences for the slight wounding of a drug smuggler. Thus, the prison sentences of these two agents represent a severe injustice.

For those who point out that the agents picked up the expended brass from their pistols after the incident and did not report it to their superiors, the answer is simply that picking up brass and failure to report is not murder and does not justify a murder sentence in the federal penitentiary. As a member of the Armed Services Committee for 26 years, I have never seen a Marine or soldier treated as severely as Ramos and Compean.

We cannot turn our back on Agents Compean and Ramos or the rest of the public servants in the U.S. Border Patrol and that’s why I urge George Bush to pardon both agents. I intend to keep attention focused on this case to insure their safety while they are in prison and to secure their release as soon as possible so they can return home to their families. That is also why I introduced H.R. 563, which would pardon Compean and Ramos. The bill already has more than 85 sponsors in the House. If that bill fails and President Bush does not do the right thing, I pledge that if I’m elected President, one of my first acts will be to grant pardons to both agents.

[calcowgirl]

Where do you come up with the 40'? I remember the drag road being talked about but I don't remember R or C saying where it was located in relation to the levee or how wide it was.

Previously posted to you... read, including footnotes:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795528/posts?page=439#439

[AndrewC]

Still don't want to answer my question, I see

Are you blind? I answered your quesion in my post 475. I'll make it bigger and in red for you.

The defendants were justified, based on their view of the situation. I have repeatedly stated I believe them.

What did you want as a trial? This?: Davila getting up and saying "I did not have a gun". Followed by Ramos and Compean getting up and saying "We think he had a gun". Ending in the jury stating "guilty".

[AndrewC]

Now, for the 4th time, why don't you answer any of my questions?

I guess the only way you'll understand this is....

MR. ANDREWC: Asked and answered.

[Bob J]

I'm looking at the satellite and the numbers don't seem to be matching up. I can see the levee road and I can see the slope of the levee road. It's kind of hazy right there because it looks like the drag area widesn quite a bit, but if you look further north or south it is clear where the south levee slope should end. There is a distance marker there and if you ask me and using my ruler it looks the distance from the bottom of the levee slope to the RG is more like the 230 feet quoted.

I think they might have screwed up in court. I remember the question to the effect "the distance from the top of the levee to the RG is 230', right", but they might have meant from the bottom of the levee.

I realize Ramos says he runs into the vega 10-15 feet, but not having the photos and where they marked them, can we be sure exactly where he did that? At the fat part of the drag road, yes I would say that is 40 feet to the vega. But at the slim part it could be 10-15.

[Bob J]

We are still left with Comps testimony. He says he and OVD rolled to the bottom of the levee slope. He also says after he gets up one knee (we assume at the same location since he doesn't say anything about moving), fires then messes with his magazines, stands up and hears a shot, looks up and sees Ramos "a few feet" from him.

24 So then I began standing up. And, as I was standing
25 up to load it, I heard another shot. And I looked over, and I
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Compean - Direct by Mr. Antcliff 164
1 saw Agent Ramos standing a few feet ahead of me.

So Compean is placed somewhere near the bottom of the levee slope (unless you want to argue they rolled 40 feet across the drag road), 40 feet or so from the edge of the vega (based on your estimate of the drag area being 40 wide there) and he places Ramos "a few feet" from him.

Now I don't know how you would interpret "a few feet", to me, it's a few but I could accept 10 feet. Ramos testifies he runs by Comp and 10-15 feet in the vega before he shoots.

Obviously, when Ramos references the vega, he means the area beginning from the bottom of the levee slope including the drag road, not 40 feet from it. The only way to accept that Ramos was 50-55 feet from the bottom of the levee slope is to believe Comp and OVD wrestled 40 feet across drag area, and that is simply not reflected anywhere in the record.

[Bob J]

I also don't believe Comp ever struggled with OVD and let me tell you why.

Any of the agents that testified about seeing OVD mention that he is young, tall, thin, wiry and very fast. That's how he got around Comp. Comp takes a shot at OVD with his shotgun when he is at or near the top of the ditch slope. Comp falls, he says to one knee, Jaurez says head first into the slope of the ditch (which would explain the dirt on his uniform and face). One would have to believe that Comp, who is 5'4, stout, short legs, carrying his equipment and in heavy boots, was able to get up and catch OVD before he reached the other side of the levee road.

IMO, OVD would have outdistanced Comp in any race, and in this race he is running for his freedom, maybe his life. I don't see how, logically, Comp could have caught up with OVD in that short of a space, jumped on his back and tackled him.

Might happen, but almost incredible to believe.

[Bob J]

You seem to accept the "puffs of dirt" story, let me ask you a question and please have the courtesy to answer.

If Compean is on one knee, on the same level with OVD and aiming at his torso (as Comp testifies), why did all those shots hit the dirt around OVD?

[Bob J]

487 is for you as well.

[Bob J]

I knew this was in the record somewhere. Regarding 485.

Ramos's testimony.

8 A. This is a vega (indicating).
9 Q. Okay. That whole area between the levee and the river?
10 A. Yes.

[Bob J]

Correction. Ramos does testify he ran 10-20 feet "past the drag road", not inot the vega.

But this still doesn't explain how Comp could be at or near the bottom of the levee slope and describe Ramos only "a few feet away" when he hears him shoot when Ramos says he is 40+10-20 feet from the bottom.

Comp cannot be that far into the drag area and Ramos cannot be that far away.

[Bob J]

Ramos testifies he doesn't see any other agents besides Comp. Juarez doesn't see Ramos. Now Ramos may be hearing them arrive and some shouting, but if they are at the edge of the ditch at the same time 10-15 feet apart there is no way that wouldn't be picked up by peripheral vision of either of them.

The only explanation is Ramos goes to the right of the van and follows OVD into the ditch as soon as he arrives, there he wouldn't see Juarez who arrives behind him and the vegetation might block Juarez from seeing him.

Juarez doesn't see Ramos cross the ditch because his attention is directed forward and he accidentally slides down into it very soon after he gets there. If he turns part way to the left to break his slide (you think he would turn left or right some) his back would be to the west where Ramos was climbing the south side of the slope but he could still see the altercation with Comp and OVD on the other side. If when he turns to exit the ditch he continues turning to the left and faces the slope, Ramos would be across and climbing out the slope and be to Juarez's rear, again out of sight.

Ramos runs to the back of Comps vehicle (as he says) but doesn't stop, he rounds it and ends up on the south side between the truck and edge of the levee. Juarez would never see him now because Comp's vehicle has a shell on the back.

But this means Ramos would see Comp as he gets to the levee edge and down some, and sees him shoot. OVD would be a quarter way across the levee now (50'), Comp aims and starts shooting 10-11 rounds in five seconds, all wide of OVD because he is just trying to "push him back", not hurt him. OVD doesn't hear them over the roar of the approaching vehicles and the high wind.

Comp reloads as Ramos moves to Comp down the side of the truck and still out of site of anyone on the other side. OVD reaches around the mid point of the levee as Comp fires 4-5 more rounds, this time a little closer since the first magazine didn't "make him dance", raising "puffs of dirt" around OVD. OVD sees these rounds and raises his hands to cover his head. OVD is now 2/3 through the vega.

R&C then take off into the vega to make sure OVD goes all the way back to Mexico. As they reach an area somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 the way through the vega and OVD reaching the Rio Grande, Ramos unhappy that he didn't get to have any fun like Compean aims and fires a shot a little wide of OVD. At this instant OVD has reached the edge area of the Rio Grande and looking for a place to run through the thick vegetation turns and moves either to the left or right...and right into the path where Ramos aimed.

Ooops.

R&C see him fall and as they turn and head back they keep an eye on the area to see if OVD was faking, just injured and makes it back to Mexico or whether they have to come back out later and retrieve a body with Ramos's bullet in it. Compean, knowing this isn't going to turn out well picks up his brass on the side of the levee and then asks Juarez to get what he was unable to because they were on the top of the levee and a Super might see him.

[erton1]

That just proves my point. It basically came down to the credibility of the witnesses, particularly the defendants and the victim. As you stated in a previous post days ago, you were predisposed to believe the defendants, and the jury came into the trial as impartial arbiters. You are entitled to your belief and so are the jurors. I do hope that if I ever try a case in your jurisdiction that you are on my jury.

[AndrewC]

If Compean is on one knee, on the same level with OVD and aiming at his torso (as Comp testifies), why did all those shots hit the dirt around OVD?

Because if there were puffs they did not hit around OVD, but he testifies and states the middle of the vega was his position when that event happened. In any case, I am using the prosecution's side of the story to damn the prosecution's side of the story.

[AndrewC]

That just proves my point. It basically came down to the credibility of the witnesses, particularly the defendants and the victim. As you stated in a previous post days ago, you were predisposed to believe the defendants, and the jury came into the trial as impartial arbiters. You are entitled to your belief and so are the jurors. I do hope that if I ever try a case in your jurisdiction that you are on my jury.

It proves no such thing. You have no idea what went on in the jury room.

I just got through talking to Joe Loya, Ramos' father-in-law. We talked for 2 hours and he was very polite and attentive. He is driven to prove the innocence of his innocent son-in-law. I also found out interesting things. You know the impartial jury you talk about. Well, three of the jurors indicate that the foreman relayed to them that a hung jury was not acceptable according to the instructions of the judge. And the jurors voted under the presumption that probation was the probable sentence. Futher, the foreman pressed the jurors to complete the deliberation in two days since he had a fishing trip to go to.

Other information that Mr. Loya gave me was that Ms. Ramirez was not a criminal lawyer, but she was a divorce lawyer. Mr. Antcliff, a criminal lawyer was hired the Friday before the trial commenced, three days later. Ms Ramirez sat on the case and did "nothing" for the intervening year, and I presume that is the reason Antcliff was hired. You can see the representation from part IV and part V of the testimonies.

He confirms what I suspected from the sat pictures. The ditch is actually 30 feet wide. He also confirmed what I suspected about the wound Davila received, it was not just to the left, it was far to the left and at the lower part of the cheek. The trajectory was definitely upward.

He also stated the the gallery was unable to see the exhibits because the prosecution had placed a big screen between them and the exhibits. He also stated that Davila initially picked up the laser pointer with his left hand and later transferred it to his right hand but had so much difficulty aiming it with his right hand that he used his left hand to assist.

More to come, and hopefully some photos probably not the exhibit type but pictures of the area.

[AndrewC]

What A Crock!!!

And you invoke Occam!?

[Cyropaedia]

Ramirez was a divorce lawyer, not a criminal defense lawyer...?? And she basically sat on the case for almost a year...?

Oh good Lord.

[AndrewC]

Yep, that is what Mr. Loya told me. This is what I found.

Business Profile

Business Owners: Create a FREE Business Profile

		Print  |  Update  |   |  Send  |  What's Nearby |
Ramirez Maria Attorney 1119 East San Antonio Avenue, El Paso, TX 79901		phone: (915) 544-6115

Products & Services: Business Law Personal Law

Appears in the Category: Attorneys

[AndrewC]

Calcowgirl, Mr. Loya told me it was 30 feet in the discussion, but I can't remember if he said it was at least that. What I did do was go back to the testimony and specifically searched out anything which measured the ditch/canal width. It is 43 feet wide.

10 Q. Okay. And so from point C to point B, that's -- C to B is
11 43 feet, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then from point B to point A, which is the canal road,
14 that's an additional 15 feet?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. So you're -- you're not any closer than 58 feet away
17 from him, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And so that's -- is that further than the distance of this
20 courtroom?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Okay. Okay. Well, let's assume it is. And I think
23 this -- so you're saying the van driver is back there, and
24 you're standing on the lip of the road, and you see his eyes?
25 A. It seemed -- it seemed a lot closer when I saw him.
1 Q. I realize that, because the van is coming right at you,
2 right?
3 A. Yes.
.
.
.

12 Q. Okay. And then what happens? And the van hasn't slowed
13 down, other than the initial slowdown. It's still racing at
14 you, right?
15 A. I wouldn't say racing, but he was still coming. It didn't
16 look like he was slowing down.
17 Q. And you thought the van was going to jump the ditch or fall
18 in the ditch or something, right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And then he opens the door, the driver?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you're looking in his eyes?
23 A. I was looking at him.
24 Q. Okay. And he looked --
25 A. Not in his eyes, but I was looking at him.
1 Q. Okay. At his face. Is that fair to say?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You're looking at his face. What's he doing?
4 A. He was -- he was opening the door.
5 Q. Okay. And are you still looking at his face, or did he
6 turn to open the door?
7 A. He -- well, he didn't -- he didn't turn to look at the --
8 at the door, but he was -- he was opening it. I was standing
9 off to the side.
10 MR. GONZALEZ: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
11 THE COURT: You may.
12 BY MR. GONZALEZ:
13 Q. Agent Compean, I'm showing you what's been marked for
14 identification purposes as Government's Exhibit 6E. Do you
15 recognize what's shown in that photograph?
16 A. It looks like Jess Harris.
17 Q. Okay. Where it meets the ditch, correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And would it also have that area where the van was racing
20 towards you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. And I think yesterday you testified that the driver
23 jumped out of the van. Is that correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And that area where the jumper -- I mean, I'm sorry --
1 where the driver jumped out, is that shown in Government's
2 Exhibit 6E?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And why don't you indicate to me where that area would be?
5 Just point it out to me, please.
6 A. It looked like maybe right around this area (indicating), I
7 would say.
8 Q. Thank you. All right.
9 MR. GONZALEZ: Your Honor, at this time we would offer
10 Government's Exhibit 6E into evidence and tender it to Defense
11 Counsel for objection -- inspection and objection, if any.
12 THE COURT: Any objections?
13 MR. PETERS: No objection.
14 MR. ANTCLIFF: No objection.
15 THE COURT: 6E will be admitted.
16 MR. GONZALEZ: And, Your Honor, would this be a good
17 time to break for the Court?
18 THE COURT: Yes, if you're -- if you're ready. If
19 this is a good place to stop.
13 THE COURT: You may be seated.
14 Ladies and gentlemen, we're back on the record.
15 And, Mr. Gonzalez, you may resume.
.
.
.
--------- picked up on page 67 -----------
8 Q. Nothing. Doesn't even stumble or anything? He just jumps
9 out, and he's fully standing, fully erect?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Okay. And then he does what, sir?
12 A. He continued -- I don't know if it was the momentum or --
13 he continued running --
14 Q. He continues running.
15 A. -- back to this side (indicating).
16 Q. Okay. The when he gets to the edge of the ditch, he does
17 what?
18 A. By then, I had already yelled at him to stop. I said,
19 Stop, put your hands up.
20 He looked at me, and then he stopped for a second and
21 looked at me, and put his hands up.
22 Q. He's on the edge of the road, he's running. And the
23 momentum doesn't push him over the ditch?
24 A. No, sir.
25 Q. And he manages to get to the edge of the ditch and raise
1 his hands?
2 A. Yes, sir. He stopped, and he raised his hands.
.
.
.
--------- picked up on page 72 -----------
1 Q. And you are absolutely sure about that, aren't you?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Okay. He's at the edge, standing there looking at you, and
4 you're looking at him, right?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. And he's probably a little bit further away than you and I
7 are at this point in time. Is that correct?
8 A. A little bit, yes.
9 Q. Because I believe -- let's see. The --
10 MR. GONZALEZ: Approach the witness?
11 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
12 BY MR. GONZALEZ:
13 Q. The -- let me point you to points B and C. Is that where
14 the irrigation ditch is, the drainage ditch?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you would agree that between B and C it's approximately
17 43 feet?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So you and I are a lot closer than that?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. All right. So he's about 43 feet away, standing there with
22 his hands up. And what did you yell to him?

The ditch is 43 wide since Compean is at the south edge and Davila is at the north edge.

[Bob J]

The other 13 feet might have been the levee slope?

[erton1]

Your post confirms some of my suspicions regarding this case. Nothing that is stated is the post regarding the jury deliberations is unusual or would constitute jury misconduct.The issue of the 3 jurors caving at the end was the subject of a motion for new trial and heavily discussed in previous threads. As I stated previously, most jury trials have a split in the jury and unfortunately for the defendants the weak sisters on the jury were on their side. The statement alleged would not constitute misconduct or reversible error under the standards of the the 5th circuit.

During the trial or the deliberations a jury is not told the range of punishment for the charges, so as to not influence them in their deliberations. I have found it not unusual for jurors to speculate as to the punishment regarding the effect of their verdict. In a federal case the jury has no say in the punishment. Again, this is not misconduct nor shows any partiality of the jurors. I have had several cases where a juror either during the trial or deliberations tells the court that he has a trip planned, the best are when he has a non-refundable ticket, and this wasn't disclosed during voir dire even asked about it. The 'fishing trip' doesn't even to begin to be any type of misconduct as you seem to infer. In fact it possibly could have saved the defendants a conviction on the attempted murder charge, since it appears the jury was ready to go home after 2 days of deliberations. I am glad you posted this info because it shows that the jury was impartial to either side and wanted to reach a verdict. If you had information that a juror was friends with a govt. witness or had done outside investigation of the case,or information of that sort, then I would have to agree that the jury was not impartial or unbiased. If these 'complaints' are the best the defense can do as far as the jury not being fair or impartial, then I am comfortable with my previous post regarding the jury.

I am somewhat surprised that the defendant would retain a lawyer who does not have any experience trying criminal cases in federal court. In federal court you are playing with the big boys and the charges were of such a serious nature that I would expect them to get someone experienced in this type of case. This also confirms 2 other suspicions I have held regarding this case. First, I had heard that these guys were 'out lawyered' during the trial, and this confirms that and tells me why. Secondly, that the defendants did not take the charges against them seriously until after they were found guilty. If they had counsel who was well versed in the federal criminal system they would have been better prepared for the trial and more realistic about the plea bargain offer. It also tells me why the representation of the defendants seemed to lack a coherency to it. Did Loya ever relate to you what the strategy or theme of the defense was at trial?

I do hope that these guys get a better shot during the appeal than they got at trial, but I don't know how much the appellate attorneys have to work with.