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.

[Bob J]

BTW - This might also explain the apparent indifference the other BPA's exhibited to R&C not only at trial but when the shoot was going down. Either R&C testified they we're known as the boys that made most of the good drug busts at Fabens. If they had a history of "hogging" the good ones for themselves and not letting the newer agents in on them or sharing the credit, maybe R&C were not well liked at the station? Maybe R&C were the two lone cowboys who didn't work and play well with the others at the station?

One thing that had all of shaking our heads was the indifference they all showed at and after the shooting. NOT ONE of them wanted to even soil their pants crossing the dirty ditch water to help either of them. Maybe the attitude was "Screw R&C, if they want this bust all to themselves, if they are going to bump us all out of getting any credit for this bust, let them handle the dirty work".

[Bob J]

The amount was somewhere around 50k. With all the support these 2 had, it would have been raised in a matter of hours. As far as any subsequent OVD lawsuit, I'm sure that was the farthest thing from their minds at the time. Anyway, it was the prosecutors who offered it, so it wasn't an issue for the guvmint.

R&C had plenty of time to start a donation campaign and raise the funds for their defense. I can't believe this wasn't considered. The only explanation is that they believed all they had to do was walk into court and say "black shiny object" and they would have walked. They overestimated the jury, but it does explain somewhat the lackluster defense.

[AndrewC]

Assuming the "canal road" is the levee road, point B looks like the north edge of the canal road. The 13 feet you're missing is the levee slope to the edge of the ditch...as I said before.

Well, you assumed wrong. The subject of the discussion is the arrival of Davila at the scene. Compean has testified that Davila left the vehicle prior to stopping at the ditch, with its wheels hanging over(you can see that in one of the pictures I posted). Gonzalez is going on about how this is not believable, because of the tire tracks.(the blocked door in the same above photo shows that Davila had to have left the vehicle prior to stopping). The road that they are discussing runs parallel to the canal/ditch. You can see it from the satellite photos. It is the road that Jess Harris "tees" into.

Lip of the road is an absolute mistake by Gonzalez. This is your "lip of the road" testimony in context.

4 Q. Let me show you Government's Exhibit Number 32. Point C,
5 is that like the end of the slope, where the drainage -- where
6 the lip of the ditch begins, more or less?
7 A. Uh --
8 Q. Well, you tell me. You look at it and...
9 A. It might be.
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.

The C to B, 43 feet is the canal/ditch. The B to A is the width of the canal road where apparently Davila exited the van. Those add up to 58 feet. So Compean was at the lip of the canal/ditch, not the road. Point C is established in lines 4 thru 6.

[AndrewC]

There was NO information from the judge that was passed onto the jury by the foreman that incorrect.The jury never notified the judge that it was deadlocked.

Well, you may have misunderstood my meaning. My understanding of the event is that some jurors have stated that the foreman "passed" the information about not allowing a hung verdict. You seem to have access to the appeals paperwork. Is that mentioned?

[Bob J]

We don't know what is really going on here. We make guesses, some are like AC and others who create this huge incredible conspiracy web from the BPA to DHS to the Justice Dept... all the way to the President. To believe that you'd have to believe all these agencies and the people involved are traitors in collusion to destroy the BP, destroy any border security and are groveling at the feet of the Mexican government, you know, because that is where the money and votes are (/sarcasm).

Occams Razor --> The simplest explanation is that many of these conspiracy people are using this incident to whip others into a frenzy in order to push their agenda, illegal immigration and border security. I think that is despicable because they elevate their own personal agenda over what I consider to be the most important issue raised by this incident, the rule of law and the policies we put in place for LEO's when they shoot to kill.

To answer your question, yes, and let me explain why.

There has been a lot of talk about why the JD seems to be interested in prosecuting what might be bad shoots and unwarranted assaults at the border. On another post I mentioned how a few years ago there was a spate of cross border shootings. The Mexican guvmint had been lodging complaints to the US that what appeared to be BPA's were shooting at aliens indiscriminately. Nobody was getting hurt, if true, to me it seemed like the BP might be extending their "push back" strategy a little far, but they weren't trying to kill anyone.

That resulted in people on the Mexican side shooting back. I don't know if was illegals, coyotes or the military, but someone was doing it. This resulted in complaints from the US guvmint to Mexico.

I think both sides got together in a parley and agreed that this was a bad situation that was only going to get worse. The perps might go from shooting in the dirt and over heads to aiming to kill and that would ignite an all out war on the border. People would get killed.

In order to stop this from going on, they decided that each side would concentrate on aggressively investigating and prosecuting incidents.

I will note that since that original spate of shootings we read about in the media, there seems to be much fewer of them. In reality, that was a situation that should have only gotten worse. The most reasonable explanation for the calming is that both the US and Mexican governments took aggressive action to stop it. Based on this theory, my answer would be yes, I would have prosecuted. You have a policy directive from the White House and Justice Dept. to investigate claims of possible bad shootings and assaults in order to avoid an all out shooting war on the border. Based initially on what they knew from OVD, that a serious injury was involved and that there appeared to be a cover up by BPA's, they had no choice but to investigate until they had a clear idea whether this shoot was justified or not. Based on what they found out from their investigation, there was a strong possibility this shoot was not justified. They had not choice but to prosecute and as an attorney, you know that means the prosecutor goes all out for a conviction. That's their job. We hope and expect them to do it legally, but that's another question.

[erton1]

It would be a close call. The factors I would look at are:
1) The strength of the case. It was not a slam dunk for the prosecutor, but I have seen weaker cases tried;
2)The actions of the defendants, whether they were intentional and malicious or not;
3) The desire of the client, DHS, to prosecute;
4) Approval of the higher ups at DOJ to prosecute.
Depending on the answers to the above, and particularly in this case 3 and 4, would give me the answer.

[erton1]

The monthly payment of the restitution is made a condition of the probation, so that if it not paid your probation can be revoked and you can be sent to prison instead. My experience has been that people go to great lengths to pay the restitution while on probation.

[erton1]

This jury was not even close to being hung. What is alleged in the motion for new trial is an allegation that the foreman stated that the judge would not allow a hung jury. There is no allegation that the judge said this or that it was included in an instruction to the jury. The defense is grasping at straws at this point to engender sympathy, but it another smoke screen. I feel sorry for the father in law, but it is sadly a situation of hope over reality.

[Bob J]

So what? Are you saying R&C are innocent because there was confusion or a mistake about the width of the ditch?

[Bob J]

All instructions to the jury are made part of the record, correct"

If so, where do the attorneys claim this is done, because I don't remember reading it,

[AndrewC]

What is alleged in the motion for new trial is an allegation that the foreman stated that the judge would not allow a hung jury.

So was I correct?

[erton1]

I agree that the defendants had to testify at trial. I think they intended to testify from the beginning and that is one of the reasons they entered into the stipulation of evidence about Ramos shooting and wounding OAD. There only viable defense they had with this fact situation was a legal justification for their actions. That practically requires the defendants to testify. I don't see any way around it.

I did not find the either of the defendant's testimony compelling nor convincing. When the defendant testifies, he has to sell his defense to the jury, and do a good job at it. If the jury does not buy the defense you are sunk.

The pre trial prep, I think, was sadly lacking for both defendants testimony. There inconsistencies and inability to have a plausible version of events, from the van to the drugs to the chase and black shiny object to the cover up just seemed to doom these guys.
I haven't thought of the drug bust angle, but you are right about Leo's and wanting the credit. Still you are right, many questions.

[erton1]

No, this was not an instruction from the judge. The judge had nothing to do with the statement. This was the opinion of the foreman. Major difference from what you are saying. You are again mouthing another untruth from the defense. If you think this had any merit, why did the 5th deny the defendants request for release pending appeal?

[AndrewC]

So what? Are you saying R&C are innocent because there was confusion or a mistake about the width of the ditch?

No, unlike lots of other people, I am attempting to get the facts straight. My analysis requires the best information possible. In fact, the new information makes the distance Davila has to run shorter by 3 seconds. That "moves" the resulting calculated vehicle separations towards more sane values, for instance 44 * 3 = 132 feet for 30 MPH. It does not help overall since the time is added to the time before Davila leaves the ditch and Juarez is there without Vasquez. Those times I have left out since the time from the south edge of the ditch was enough to torpedo the prosecution's story. If you want to add those 13 feet to the south edge of the ditch, go ahead. It makes the time increase around one second, worse for the prosecution.

All in all, the decrease of around 3 seconds on the south side of the ditch helps the defense more. It also shortens the time that Ramos has to travel before he shoots by 3 seconds. He runs a lesser distance than Davila, therefore 3 seconds is a larger portion of his total time. It helps him more. You see, Ramos has to travel from the ditch to his firing position in the time Compean has fired his last shot and is fumbling with the magazine.

[erton1]

ROTFLOL, you are the first person, on any thread, that has stated Ramos was an excellent witness. I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. I sure the jury agreed with your assessment./s

[erton1]

The charge and instructions to the jury are included in the record sent by the district clerk to the appellate court. It is not part of the transcript from the court reporter.

[AndrewC]

No, this was not an instruction from the judge

I didn't say it was, I stated "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". I stated what three of the jurors indicated. They could have indicated that the moon was made of green cheese and my statement would have still been true even though the moon is not made of green cheese. It may be the opinion of the foreman, I don't care. I stated what I was told and you seem to verify that, whether or not the actual information that was related was true or not. If it comes out that all of the jurors admit that the foreman did say that and three of the jurors changed their decision based on that false information then there is a decision to be made on that. Whether it is sufficient or not to require a retrial is not my concern. You seem to think not. Okay so? Time will tell.

[erton1]

Btw, the judge would have allowed this jury to deliberate for at least a week or two, especially with a 9-3 or 10-2 split.

[AndrewC]

ROTFLOL, you are the first person, on any thread, that has stated Ramos was an excellent witness

Well, thank you. You want to experience it again? Ramos was an excellent witness. This is what Chris Sanchez says about one of the actions of Ramos.

1 Q. Right. Now, there wasn't anything wrong with Agent Ramos
2 going across that drainage ditch, was there?
3 A. Absolutely not.
4 Q. Okay. And, in fact, we've heard testimony from several
5 people that said that that's the appropriate thing to do when
6 you see your agents get -- your fellow worker having a hard
7 time, correct?
8 A. I would have been across that ditch in a heartbeat.

Juarez and Vasquez weren't even interested about the gunshots they heard.

[erton1]

You have no idea what you are talking about. First you say the foreman passed the info on from the judge. Absolutely false. Then you say there is a decision to made on it. The decision has already been made, the judge already denied their motion for new trial based on this evidence. They may try on appeal, but its a loser in the 5th circuit.