Skip to comments.
Senate Hearing On Ramos and Compean 7/17/07
7/10/07
Posted on 07/10/2007 7:15:45 PM PDT by Ladycalif
Attached just in from Monica Ramos!!
July 10, 2007
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a "Hearing to Examine the Prosecution of Igancio Ramos and Jose Compean" for Tuesday July 17th, 2007 at 10:00am in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.
Senator Feinstein will preside.
By order of the Chairman.
TOPICS: US: Arizona; US: California; US: Texas; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: aliens; borderagents; duncanhunter; immigrantlist; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-124 next last
To: Sioux-san
These guys turned down a plea bargain for a lesser offense that would have resulted in no prison time. Don’t blame Sutton for the defendants stupidity.
101
posted on
07/14/2007 9:32:59 AM PDT
by
erton1
To: Sioux-san
Well if you roll the dice and you lose, you better be ready for the consequences. The defendants knew range of punishment in this case and they got nowhere near the maximum, so your complaint falls on deaf ears.
102
posted on
07/14/2007 9:37:53 AM PDT
by
erton1
To: erton1
Good information.
It reinforces my opinion that they’ve done enough time and Bush should commute their sentences.
103
posted on
07/14/2007 9:40:58 AM PDT
by
airborne
(If there were no polls, and you had to go on a candidate's record alone, who would you vote for?)
To: Perdogg; Sioux-san
Perdogg’s comment is what should have happened in this case. It would have if the defendants had taken the plea bargain. After reading their testimony I am surprised they did not.
104
posted on
07/14/2007 9:43:22 AM PDT
by
erton1
To: Dante3
Read the testimony of the other BP agents and the defendants themselves. These guys were guilty.
105
posted on
07/14/2007 9:46:16 AM PDT
by
erton1
To: erton1
In your view then the Duke lacrosse players should also have accepted a plea. What nonsense. It is obvious that no charges should have been filed against Ramos and Compean. Johnny Sutton and the judge withheld information that would have cleared the BP agents. Even law and order advocate John Walsh supports Ramos and Compeon. And they are not the only ones Johnny Sutton has framed.
106
posted on
07/14/2007 10:23:11 AM PDT
by
Dante3
To: Dante3
No I try many criminal cases, and it is decision made after weighing the evidence and the potential exposure of being sent to prison, especially federal time without parole. No one should take a plea bargain if they truly feel they are not guilty. But after reading the defendants testimony, I would have urged them to take the plea bargain with probation and loss of their job. They had an eleven count indictment, were facing up to 25 years in prison and had a weak story to show legal justification for their actions. The jury obviously did not buy it.
If information was wrongfully withheld from the jury, that is an issue in the appeal. It may be successful or not. The 5th circuit case law on the evidentiary point of the admissibility of extraneous offenses to impeach a witness (Davila) will make it difficult for the defendants to prevail on that specific point of error. The 5th circuit is considered one of the more conservative and pro government circuits in the nation.
107
posted on
07/14/2007 3:02:34 PM PDT
by
erton1
To: erton1
What about the inbalance between what the BC agents did to the so-called victim, and the punishment? This is way out of wack, plea deal or not. Just a few months later the drug-dealing criminal was back in Texas delivering another load of dope. Lying/covering up are all bad and against the law/rules - no way should these guys be doing hard time in a Federal pen. It’s like telling your kid to fess up whether he did all his homework. He lies, and instead of getting grounded, you send him off to Juvenile detention.
To: Sioux-san
The problem is the federal mandatory minimum law on the use of a firearm in the commission of a federal offense. This requires a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years stacked on top of any other sentence the defendant would receive. The plea deal proffer by the government would have defendants pleading guilty to one count without a finding of the use of a firearm and a recommendation of probation. They most likely would have gotten one year probation, no prison but would have lost their jobs. That I think was their big hang up with the plea bargain. My experience has been that when a person faces loss of his job or occupation as a result of a plea bargain, they are very hesitant to accept the deal. The defendants decided to go to trial needing a gut shot straight draw to prevail and lost. I am sure they would rather be home with their families, even if they have to flip burgers at Mickey D’s, rather than looking at spending the next decade at Club Fed.
109
posted on
07/14/2007 3:55:35 PM PDT
by
erton1
To: Sioux-san
The Mandatory minimum sentence law enacted by Congress does not contain an exception for LEO’s. It gives the judge no discretion in the sentencing, as shown in this case. This case is a good example why myself and many others are opposed to the mandatory minimum laws. There appears to be little traction in Congress to change the law, and the only group making an effort is the criminal defense attorney bar.
110
posted on
07/14/2007 4:02:17 PM PDT
by
erton1
To: erton1
I agree with what you have said - I am just saying that Sutton had a choice and he went for charges way out of proportion to the crime — do you agree with that? What am I missing?
To: SoCalPol
112
posted on
07/16/2007 7:01:18 PM PDT
by
The Spirit Of Allegiance
(Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
To: The Spirit Of Allegiance
113
posted on
07/16/2007 7:18:34 PM PDT
by
SoCalPol
(Duncan Hunter '08 Tough on WOT & Illegals)
To: Perdogg
Even if you are correct, the punishment was way too severe.
114
posted on
07/16/2007 7:21:14 PM PDT
by
Theodore R.
( Cowardice is still forever!)
To: Perdogg
It very much has to do with GWB: it’s his prosecutor (Sutton) and his harsh sentencing.
115
posted on
07/16/2007 7:23:17 PM PDT
by
Theodore R.
( Cowardice is still forever!)
To: Theodore R.
116
posted on
07/16/2007 7:29:45 PM PDT
by
Perdogg
(Cheney for President 2008)
To: Ladycalif
117
posted on
07/17/2007 8:24:59 AM PDT
by
Calpernia
(Breederville.com)
To: Theodore R.
Wasting your time with the Bush apologists. They never miss an opportunity to justifiy the conviction of R & C and disrupt any thread pertaining to their release.
118
posted on
07/17/2007 12:43:43 PM PDT
by
Kimberly GG
(DUNCAN HUNTER '08)
To: Kimberly GG
When GWB suspects that he may be wrong, he digs in all the firmer. He will never pardon these agents because he BELIEVES in Johnny Sutton. It’s one of the few powers he seems to have left as he fiddles while his party disintegrates.
119
posted on
07/19/2007 4:43:45 AM PDT
by
Theodore R.
( Cowardice is still forever!)
To: Ladycalif; All
120
posted on
07/20/2007 7:58:10 AM PDT
by
AliVeritas
(I'd rather be in Gitmo under Bush, than a Davidian under Clinton. - Media Tycoon)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-124 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson