Posted on 03/05/2007 9:16:23 AM PST by 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.
Do you remember when the grand jury issued their 1st indictment?
I have a general legal question for you about discovery and other obligations of the prosecution team to produce information.
If documents such as OIG reports (Memorandums of Activity) and witness statements are provided to the defense, and subsequently one of those witnesses recants or completely changes his statement, is there a legal requirement that the prosecution advise the defense team? What if that statement is only oral and no written statement is provided? Would an OIG official be obligated to turn over his notes or any information about the interview? And what if that statement is given not in an "official" interview with OIG, but instead in a "meeting" with prosecutors? Is there any obligation to tell the defense team that the entire story about the offense their clients were accused of had now changed if the new story fits within the original charges in the indictment?
The problem you have is that as a lawyer this is all a parlor game to you. You can debate the trial and evidence forever but fact is Ramos and Compean should never have been indicted. For shooting at and winging a damn drug dealer?? Should have been handled in agency. Within the Border Patrol
And foreign POS running drugs across our border should have the book thrown at him. Instead Johny Sutton gave him immunity for the second smuggling incident
I am enraged at Mexicans running drugs here. For you it's just stupid fun and games about the fine points of the case.
Somewhere we have miscommunicated. The above was my point.
Solly
Bet you can't wait till 2009 when the democrats win and you don't have President Bush to kick around anymore.
Bet you can't wait till 2009 when the democrats win and you don't have President Bush to kick around anymore.
The first indictment was April 13, 2005.
Document 14 - Filed 04/13/2005 Count 1 18 USC § 113(a)(1) -- Assault with Intent to Murder Count 2 18 USC § 11 3(a)(3) -- Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Count 3 18 USC § 113(a)(6) -- Assault with Serious Bodily Injury
What's the question? Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping up on the thread.
No problem! Just wanted to make sure we were on the same wavelength, lol.
Thank you!
I have some backtracking to do, but I'll give you some specifics tomorrow... if you wouldn't mind giving your opinion.
No problem. Basket Ball over and going to bed.
Bull, Kanof's marginalizing it in her closing is evidence that it hurt the prosecution not the defense. "But he's not left-handed. That's the most important thing.", indeed. How is it the most important thing if the medical testimony was so damaging?
Concerning your answer in 668, so there was no reason for Kanof to state this and for Chris Sanchez to agree?
6 We had also -- like I said, I spoke to Aldrete-Davila 7 on, I believe, March 11. And, basically, during that time 8 period, I arranged a meeting with him at the American consulate 9 in Ciudad Juarez. 10 Q. Okay. Did -- Mr. Aldrete-Davila didn't want to talk to 11 you, did he? 12 A. No, he did not want to talk to me. 13 Q. Okay. And Mr. Gonzalez and I were not the prosecutors of 14 this case at that time, were we? 15 A. No, you were not. 16 Q. Okay. The prosecutor who was handling that case at that 17 time, what decision did she make? 18 A. She made the decision to give him -- I believe it's a 19 limited use immunity. 20 Q. Okay. And you're not a lawyer, correct? 21 A. No, I'm not. 22 Q. But did she also instruct you what -- when you -- she 23 didn't go with you to Juarez, correct? 24 A. No, ma'am, she did not. -----------------------AND------------------------- 1 A. I had the driver's license photos of the different Border 2 Patrol agents that were on duty that day, and he could not 3 identify any of them. 4 Q. Okay. How many Border Patrol agents were on duty that day? 5 A. I think 11 or 12. I would have to think about it. 6 Q. Were the defendants among those photographs? 7 A. Yes, ma'am. 8 Q. The defendants' pictures among those? 9 A. Yes, ma'am. 10 Q. Okay. And he couldn't identify who had -- he had 11 encountered on that day? 12 A. No, ma'am. He could only describe one agent that he 13 encountered on the drainage ditch. 14 Q. Okay. And how did he describe that agent? 15 A. The shortest, heavyset, with dark skin.Davila couldn't identify anybody. So on 16 March exactly what crime did C. Sanchez think was committed? Everything he had heard was from an admitted drug dealer who could not identify his "assailant" even though he was one step away from one of them. There was not a potential crime until Judge Mesa found probable cause on 18 Mar so what case was there for prosecutors to be working on on the 16th of Mar?
The stipulation does no such thing. I'm not trying to show that Ramos didn't shoot Davila, he did. I'm showing that not only Davila was lying through his teeth, but so were Juarez and Vasquez. I'm looking at all the testimony. You just keep proving that you don't. You seem to be saying that all that the prosecution had to do was produce the stipulation at the beginning of the trial and rest. I'm showing that Davila is a liar and he was in a position that could be interpreted as threatening especially considering the testimony of his actions in the ditch. When told to stop from 43 feet away he proceeded to advance towards an agent and even proceeded to speed up his advance when he saw that he was "surrounded".
And you obviously refuse to read because it was not the DNA evidence that blew Nifong out of the water. It was the math showing that the "victim" could not be telling the truth.
I'm sorry... your guess as to what? When the investigation was "complete"? (I don't think so--Vasquez didn't go show CSanchez where he supposedly found the casings until May)
Definitely fast track. Here is another date from the court docket (there are 17 entries--for each defendant--on the docket before March 30). It got moved from Judge Mesa to Cardone on the same date of the indictment (4/13/05).
You see my point.
No need to do that now, but I told him why the defense stipulated those things. Ramos was innocent and it was evident that Ramos did hit Davila. erton1 could not see that in my answer.
Aldrete-Davila - Cross by Ms. Stillinger 146 4 Q. Okay. And was that your idea, to ask for the immunity 5 agreement? 6 A. No, no. He [Chris Sanchez] mentioned to me that, if I would come and 7 interview and cooperate with him, that he would give it to me. 8 It wasn't done on my initiative. 9 Q. Okay. Well, initially, when you talked to Rene Sanchez 10 about this, you told him you didn't want to talk without having 11 an immunity agreement, didn't you? 12 A. No, not specifically an immunity agreement. I told him I 13 didn't want to talk to him, because I didn't want to have any 14 problems over here. 15 Q. Okay. Was it Rene Sanchez that suggested an immunity 16 agreement for you? 17 A. Yes. He mentioned to me that it could be handled this way. 18 And then, when I talked to Agent Sanchez with Chris, then they 19 explained it to me, and then they gave it to me. 20 Q. Okay. Just so we don't confuse the two Sanchezes, it was 21 Rene Sanchez that suggested this to you. And then later you 22 talked to Chris Sanchez about it? 23 A. Yes.
18 And then, when I talked to Agent Sanchez with Chris, then they 19 explained it to me, and then they gave it to me.
Well, that statement really threw me for a loop when I read it. I assume that the other agent at the interview in Juarez was R. Sanchez. They never testify or state that they had a conference call. Another wild possibility is that a phone call was made to C. Sanchez from Mexico with R. Sanchez present in either location. But I opt for the Juarez scenario because he said "they gave it to me". A supervisor and C. Sanchez should be sufficient to get the information that they needed. In that circumstance I'd bet R. Sanchez was there for "convincing" purposes. But to carry things out to the edge, the convincing would not really be needed. Davila and R. Sanchez were already in cahoots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.