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.

[AndrewC]

I'm not sure I'm following all of your measurements, but how do you account for the following testimony?

I don't know, but I do know that the measurements I've given for the levee slope and ditch width are consistent with the satellite pictures. The 230 foot measurement is consistent with the satellite picture. It is apparent that Gonzalez has trouble with pictures and numbers.

[AndrewC]

It's called reading between the lines, filling in the dead spots and trying to explain the inexplicable, something every juror has to do as well.

Well, I suggest you get a new pair of reading-between-the-lines glasses.

2 Mr. Ramos's co-workers had an enchilada dinner, a fund
3 raiser for him, shortly after their arrest, Mr. Compean and
4 Mr. Ramos. These agents have been with them from the
5 beginning, and they're with them today.
6 I was told that all of the agents in the Fabens
7 station requested leave today so they could be here and show
8 their support for Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean. They were not
9 given that permission, apparently.

[Bob J]

You latch onto, as I say, the flotsam and jetsam of this trial, no matter how trivial or irrelevant. OVD and the load are a good example. He testifies he didn't know for sure and couldn't smell it, but he believed it to be a mj load.

So what's the difference? He testified he knew that he was transporting mj and that was what he was being paid for. You seem to be taking the tack that he is a liar because he was untruthful about smelling it, when if he was inclined to lie he would have been better off saying he did smell it. The fact you bring it up proves my point...it sounds unreasonable to us and probably did to the jury as well.

[Bob J]

Too bad that concern did not extend to crossing the smelly ditch to help their brother who might have been under fire and possibly shot.

[AndrewC]

That would be the canal road behind him.

[AndrewC]

Too bad that concern did not extend to crossing the smelly ditch to help their brother who might have been under fire and possibly shot.

We know who those two were, the liars.

[Sue Bob]

Did I say that? I just don't think that Juarez saw Compean shoot. I think he was with the van the whole time that happened.

I'm not convinced he saw the initial confrontation between Compean and OAD. But, if he saw it, I think he put a spin on it.

That's what I infer from the testimony and the fact that Juarez was an admitted liar.

[AndrewC]

He testifies he didn't know for sure and couldn't smell it, but he believed it to be a mj load.

So what's the difference? He testified he knew that he was transporting mj and that was what he was being paid for. You seem to be taking the tack that he is a liar because he was untruthful about smelling it, when if he was inclined to lie he would have been better off saying he did smell it. The fact you bring it up proves my point...it sounds unreasonable to us and probably did to the jury as well.

Yeah, right. /sarc Along with a cell phone he did not know how to use and a plugged in cell phone charger that wasn't there. Along with raised hands for a second or so followed by advancing towards the south for 43 feet so that the agents north of him could put handcuffs on him. Davila is a liar.

You've given your hallucinations, so I will give you mine.

The van was driven from Mexico to area 76 by Davila. He used credentials and procedures provided to him by his friend Rene Sanchez, a border patrol agent, who had the means and knowledge to gain the things Davila needed to cross the border with the van. At area 76 the marijuana, which had been transported across the river by the real mules, was loaded into the van. Then the chase began. After he had been shot, and upon reaching the Mexican side of the river, Davila called on the cell phone he had carried in his left hand to his friends who came to pick him up and transport him to medical aid.

How's that? Oh, and if you look beyond the levee top into Mexico, there are no hills visible. So those guys with "glasses" that observed everything .... they don't exist.

[AndrewC]

Hmmm, you seem to be saying it may be possible for a person to be lying when they say they believe someone is pointing a gun at them.

Wow!! Are you a Jeopardy ® champion? Anything can be lied about. It's just that two people say that someone may be pointing a gun versus someone saying two people are definitely pointing guns. There is a difference. Notice it?

[calcowgirl]

I can't totally discount Gonzalez because Compean is following along agreeing with him at most every step. (and I have no idea where gonzalez now gets 53 ft!) If there is one thing I would love to know from the attorneys (if Loya could get it) is the exact measurements on a couple of these key exhibits mentioned in the testimony.

I can possibly see how the ditch, if you include the lips at both sides, could be 43 feet. But now I'm now trying to determine the proper distance from the ditch to the levee road. If you recall, I previously thought 73 feet referred to that distance (post 212) but you convinced me based on slopes that it had to be less. I'm wondering if the discrepancy isn't due to the difference in slope vs. angle degrees. Gonzalez seems to be referring to the latter and I think the exhibits may actually say the former.

Here are some more excerpts from Compean's examination:

Gonzalez: Let me see if my math is correct. ... From where you're chasing him, you're chasing him from point C to point D. ... Because this is the levee road, where it says, River levee road, D, E ... And you're -- I think you just indicated that you caught him on the south side of the river levee road, point E ...And so from point C to point D is approximately 73 feet. Is that correct?

Compean: Yes, sir.

Gonzalez: And D to E is 17. So you two are running for 100 feet before you catch up to him?

Compean: I believe so, yes. Yes, sir.

...

Gonzalez: Okay. ... where it says 11 feet, that's the ditch... And then you have your altercation where it says 31 degrees, right in that area where I'm pointing ... And that's where you're trying to strike him and pushing him away, right?

Compean: Yes, sir.

Gonzalez: And then he runs across these 53 feet? ... Goes up the slope of the levee road? ...And he runs across, correct, the flat area of the levee road?

Compean: Yes, sir.

Gonzalez: And where I'm holding my finger, I'm pointing my finger to the south edge of the levee road (indicating). Is that where you catch up to him?

Compean: Right about there, yes, sir.

[calcowgirl]

That would be the canal road behind him.

Yep... about 15 feet wide. And that would be the "lip" that he is standing on, I assume.

[calcowgirl]

In Sipe, one of the reasons for granting a new trial was the suppression of evidence regarding personal animus held by one of the agent-witnesses who testified against Sipe.

In this case, some animosity apparently did exist, but Stillinger kept it out. ("mean guy"... or "afraid of"...)

Vol 12, p.121 (during C.Sanchez testimony)

8 MS. STILLINGER: Your Honor, I know what she's going
9 for, but it has nothing to do with my questions. My questions
10 were, there's no reason that Agent Juarez would hide this
11 because -- that's the point I was making. He has no motive to
12 hide this.
13 What she wants to get into is what Agent Juarez said,
14 insofar as he withheld information at the beginning -- not
15 withholding at trial, but at the beginning -- it was because he
16 thought Nacho was a mean guy.
17 MS. KANOF: He said he was afraid of him.
18 MS. STILLINGER: If you could keep your voice down,
19 please.

[Bob J]

I was just wondering what your thoughts on that were.

[AndrewC]

For some reason I could not reply last night. The posting page kept timing out.

Gonzalez: Let me see if my math is correct. ... From where you're chasing him, you're chasing him from point C to point D. ... Because this is the levee road, where it says, River levee road, D, E ... And you're -- I think you just indicated that you caught him on the south side of the river levee road, point E ...And so from point C to point D is approximately 73 feet. Is that correct?
Compean: Yes, sir.

Gonzalez: And D to E is 17. So you two are running for 100 feet before you catch up to him?

Well, Mr. Gonzalez your math is not correct 73 + 17 = 90. Gonzalez had a lot of trouble with numbers and images.

[Bob J]

Do you believe a 5'4" portly thirty something with a heavy utility belt and Doc Martins could chase down and tackle a tall, thin, wiry 24 year old in sneakers with a 15-20 foot lead over a distance of 50-60 feet?

[calcowgirl]

I think Gonzalez's measurements in this case are to the point south of point E, where Compean caught up to OAD, i.e. 10 feet (based on Gonzalez-math) beyond point E. I should have included the part preceding the testimony I posted.

20 Q. And where is it that you catch up to him?
21 A. I believe it was maybe right in this area here
22 (indicating).
23 Q. On the south side of the levee road?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Okay. And let me see. That would be approximately -- .

Gonzalez then proceeds with the testimony I posted, coming up with 100 feet.

C to point  73 feet
D to E      17 feet
D to X      10 feet
           ---
Total      100 feet

C                          D           E    X
so. edge of ditch----------> Levee Rd. <-----
^ -----    73 ft   -----   ^   17 ft   ^    ^
                                            |
                                            |
X = Altercation Compean/OAD at 100 ft       |

[superfries]

Wasn't there a FReeper who had read every word of the trial transcripts and posted an article basically explaining that these 2 were guilty as charged? Anyone out there remember that posting....it was quite long as I recall. Need a link if you can provide it!

[erton1]

I think from reading the transcript, that the defendants did a poor job on cross. They tend to retract parts of their direct testimony, for instance when asked in detail about previous testimony on direct they often say it was an assumption. they also seemed somewhat evasive on answers that they need not to have been evasive, ie: the border patrol codes. I attribute most of their problems to pre testimony prep. They must have known that they their testimony was probably the the most important in the trial, it almost always is when the defendant elects to testify. They may have been nervous, I know I would have been.

In contrast the govt. witnesses rarely ever backtracked in their testimony, and appear on paper to be more confidant in their testimony. Granted we can not see the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses. Little things, like who is the witness facing when answering the question, can mean a lot on how the jury perceives their testimony. Is the witness looking at the questioner, the jury or even his own counsel table. I always tell my witnesses to look at the questioner for the question and then turn to the jury and give the answer directly to them, preferably one or two that we have already picked out as paying more attention than others.

I also had a difficult time believing their version with the "black shiny object" and don't think they were convincing on that point. This was key for their legal justification defense.

Most of the important witnesses at trial had credibility problems, some more than others. The defendants biggest credibility problem was their actions later in covering up the shooting. IMHO, that hurt them big time with jury. Juarez had changes in his story, which hurt him. I think Juarez had more credibility with the jury. Again.just MHO.

In defense of the defendants, I thought that the prosecutors did a better job on cross exam than the defense attorneys. Unless I have a to cross a sympathetic witness, ie: old person, and especially if the witness is the other party, I take as many shots at them, confuse them, trap them, and try to put words in their mouth that contradicts their previous testimony. That is the purpose of cross exam,put as many holes in the testimony of the other side as possible and then remind the jury of it at the close of the trial.Of course when the defendant testifies in a criminal case, it is usually at the end of the trial, so the testimony is still somewhat fresh in the juror's minds, good or bad.

[Bob J]

That would have been me, we seem to have picked it up on this thread. BTW - As far as "guilty", I only mean it in the sense that the shoot wasn't justified. IMHO it was an accident when they hit OVD, they were never intending on hitting him. I also believe popping off shots in the direction of runners may have been a common occurrence, a "push back" measure, and everyone just turned their heads at it. It explains a lot of the weird behavior by agents.

In that sense the BP Supervisors may be just as guilty as R&C because apparently it was allowed to go on.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1788411/posts

[AndrewC]

Okay, but everything I see and read leads me to believe that the slope of the levee is 30 feet and begins close to or at the south edge of the ditch.