Feds admit smuggler lied in Ramos-Compean case

The U.S. government admitted today in federal court that the prosecution's star witness in the criminal trial of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean – confessed drug dealer Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila – lied under oath. "He told some lies on the stand," Mark Stelmach, the assistant U.S. attorney representing prosecutor U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton said under questioning by a three-judge 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel in New Orleans

Of course, when it’s relevant and has probative value. I assume you’re talking about the, at the time, alleged second load. At that time they only had the word of another drug smuggler that OAD was involved, no other evidence. At trial OAD stated this was his first load and that he was trying to get money for an operation for his mother. Sounds like crap to me but a second load AFTER the first does not disprove this statement.

All the second load would prove is that OAD was a drug mule, something they already knew and OAD had admitted to in court. As far as I can see, if they did admit this info, as shaky as it was at the time, it would have made no difference to the jury except to prove that OAD was really REALLY a drug mule.

R&C supporters cling to this as if it is the Rosetta Stone of the trial. They ignore the fact the jury convicted R&C of tampering with evidence, obstruction of justice and a cover up, not to mention the unjustified firing of their weapons.

How does this additional info change any of that? IF you say it would discredit OAD in front of the jury, several jury members said after the trial that they discounted OAD’s testimony BECAUSE he was a drug mule, but convicted R&C on their own behavior and contradictory testimony.

I don’t know where you get your info (are you making it up?) but it is mostly erroneous.

DEa knows that drug mules rarely carry guns...they only get them killed. It’s not their drugs, they don’t care and they’re only in it for the paycheck. If they get hijacked they give up the load and go home. The only time they normally carry guns is if they are part of the cartel or they own the drugs, and drug mules NEVER are part of the cartel. They are hired because they know nothing, are expendable and easily replaced and if caught cannot finger the main players.

You stated the incident was reported to superiors. I’d like to know where you got THIS info because this entire incident is based on the fact they DIDN’T notify. Not one piece of evidence was introduced at trial to indicate it was reported and when asked dirtectly both R&C admitted they had not.

The BS flies so fast and high you need wings to stay above it.

Haven’t at least two of the original jurors state publically if they knew then what they now know about the case they would not have voted to convict?

Yep.

08/13/2006

Two of the jurors who convicted the agents also are expressing misgivings about the verdict, saying they were pressured by other jury members and the prosecution to reach a quick decision in the case. ...On Friday, two of the 12 jurors who convicted the agents said pressure from the prosecution and possible misconduct involving other jurors may have led to the conviction. In an interview with the Daily Bulletin Saturday, a juror who asked to be identified only as Claudia said she was the last holdout on the jury before the guilty verdicts were handed down. "I've had nightmares about the family since the day of the verdict," Claudia said. "I want to do whatever I can to support the families. I'm not at peace."

10/18/06, Jurors say they were misled to convict agents

One man and two women on the jury that convicted two former El Paso Border Patrol agents of shooting a drug smuggler in the buttocks last year said they were misled into agreeing with a guilty verdict, according to a motion filed Tuesday.... The three jurors, identified in court documents as Robert Gourley, Claudia Torres and Edine Woods, said they were still holding out on a guilty vote by the second day of deliberation. "I did not think the defendants were guilty of the assaults and civil rights violations," Woods wrote in her sworn affidavit.

October 25, 2006

U.S. District Court Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, sentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 12 years in prison and Ignacio Ramos to 11 years and one day despite a plea by their attorney for a new trial after three jurors said they were coerced into voting guilty in the case.

The question is the suspect, OAD, a mule or part of the cartel. The prosecutor says OAD is a mule while the defense says OAD is part of the cartel and therefore would carry a gun. Looks like He said-She said to me. You take the word of one side over the other.

The border agents called for backup. Their superior was one of the officers who responded to the call. That appears to me to be a report to a superior. (I’ll get you the source where I heard this on the radio.)

Here is one article I found where OAD’s family said he was smuggling since he was 14. Appears that OAD wasn’t a mule.

“The prosecutorial caricature proved so transparent local media rapidly saw through it. The (Ontario, CA) Daily Bulletin provided outstanding coverage of all aspects of the trial, reporting:

[A]n Office of Inspector General memorandum obtained by the Daily Bulletin Tuesday contradicts [Prosecutor] Sutton’s claim that Ramos and Compean reported Aldrete-Davila was unarmed. The memorandum of activity was written April 4, 2005, by Christopher Sanchez, the OIG investigator who questioned Compean about the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting. Sanchez was the same agent who went to Mexico to interview Aldrete-Davila, according to documents obtained by the newspaper.

The Sanchez memo notes:

Compean said that Aldrete-Davila continued to look back over his shoulder towards Compean as Aldrete-Davila ran away from him. Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila’s hand and because Aldrete-Davila continued to look back towards his direction. Compean explained that he thought the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot at him because he kept looking back at him.

Two of the smuggler’s family members lend credence to his concern, telling the newspaper Aldrete-Davila had been smuggling since age 14 and “wouldn’t move drugs unless he had a gun on him.” One of them added he had lately taken to “bragging about the money he’s going to get in a lawsuit every time we talk to him – but now he’s nervous.”

Further, murderous retaliation was not confined to his past. The Sanchez memo continues:

Osbaldo [Aldrete-Davila] had told [Border Patrol agent] Rene Sanchez that his friends had told him they should put together a hunting party and go shoot some BP [Border Patrol] agents in revenge for them shooting Osbaldo. Osbaldo advised Rene Sanchez that he told his friends he was not interested in going after the BP agents and getting in more trouble. (Emphasis added.)

On the other hand, even the prosecution admits, “in the entire time of the defendants’ employment as Border Patrol agents, every reported shooting had been ruled justified and no agent was disciplined as a result of a shooting.”

Aside from conflicting stories of Border Patrol agents caught up in the heat of a shootout, the case comes down to the word of two exemplary officers with spotless records versus that of a drug smuggling border crasher who may or may not have opted to have his gangland friends execute innocent Border Patrol agents as long as it would not entail “getting into more trouble.” Ramos is a Navy veteran and has been nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.

Nevertheless, this August a jury in Texas convicted the two of assault with serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, violating the “civil rights” of an illegal alien, and obstruction of justice “for not reporting that their weapons had been fired.”

Some of the jurors broke down in tears at the reading of the guilty verdict. Three jurors – Robert Gourley, Claudia Torres, and Edine Woods – came forward days before the sentencing in October to say they had been holdouts against a guilty verdict and only voted with the majority when other jurors told them the judge would not allow a hung jury. Doing so, they noted, violated their consciences. Gourley wrote, “Had we had the option of a hung jury, I truly believe the outcome may have been different.” Two days later, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone denied the motion for a new trial. “

Link http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={5486CECF-7448-4CB7-8AAE-B48F60A29959}

I have never said they weren’t innocent but the punishment should have been handled at the Border Patrol level and not in a court of law.

“The question is the suspect, OAD, a mule or part of the cartel.”

Uhhh, no it’s not. First R&C didn’t know anything about OAD at the time of the shoot...they didn’t even know if he was an illegal. Second, Leo’s still cannot just shoot someone because they THINK they might be a drug mule or even a cartel member. I can’t believe I have to explain this over and over and it never gets through.

“The prosecutor says OAD is a mule while the defense says OAD is part of the cartel and therefore would carry a gun.
Looks like He said-She said to me.”

This is so laughable it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. The prosecution and defense can say whatever they want but they have to provide some evidence for the jury to buy it or it’s just a lot of hot air from a talking head. I don’t remember the R&C defense EVER presenting anything at trial to prove OAD was part of a drug cartel. IF they had it, don’t you think they would have entered it into evidence?

Second, you can’t just say “we’re pretty sure he was a cartel member and therefore pretty sure he had a gun”. This is not evidence, it’s hot air that doesn’t mean a thing at trial.

“You take the word of one side over the other.”

Evidently, so did the jury. Btw - I’ll say it for the 100th time, I don’t care what OAD said, he is a pathetic POS. I came to conclusion there was no gun based solely on the testimony of R&C.

“The border agents called for backup. Their superior was one of the officers who responded to the call. That appears to me to be a report to a superior. (I’ll get you the source where I heard this on the radio.)”

Uhh, no it isn’t. First, the radio call was for the pursuit, there never was a radio call about shots fired.

“Here is one article I found where OAD’s family said he was smuggling since he was 14. Appears that OAD wasn’t a mule.’

Well no, we have a newspaper saying they talked to “two family members” but they don’t identify them nor do they give an additional information about when and where this happened. So for me you can just stick in the garbage can.

Why didn’t the defense call these two “family members” to the witness stand during the trial?

As far as the scene where some of OAD’s friends want to retaliate against the BP(which was presented at trial) I’m not sure how this supports your case or makes OAD look bad...he states and testified that he would have nothing to do with it and talked them out of it.

Now I’m not sure if this is true, but it’s right there in black and white and how you could have misinterpreted it is beyond me.

“On the other hand, even the prosecution admits, “in the entire time of the defendants’ employment as Border Patrol agents, every reported shooting had been ruled justified and no agent was disciplined as a result of a shooting.’

I think the functional word in that sentence is “reported”.

“Aside from conflicting stories of Border Patrol agents caught up in the heat of a shootout, the case comes down to the word of two exemplary officers with spotless records versus that of a drug smuggling border crasher who may or may not have opted to have his gangland friends execute innocent Border Patrol agents as long as it would not entail “getting into more trouble.” Ramos is a Navy veteran and has been nominated for Border Patrol Agent of the Year.”

This has been noted but still doesn’t mean the shoot was good. And I’ll say it for the 947th time, it makes no difference because R&C still cannot shoot an unarmed suspect, period, unless their safety was in danger, and the jury ruled against them on this point.

R&C have claimed they felt their were in danger? You choose not to believe them. I choose to believe them. They are the accussed and they don’t have to prove anything. Oh wait, I’m suppose to believe the testimony of OAD who the prosecutor now admits LIED on the stand.

As for the defense of R&C, I don’t know all the evidence they tried to put into court to defend themselves but were not allowed due to legal filings by Sutton such as the amount of drugs that were found in the van. This might have convinced some of the jury that OAD was not a simple mule but part of a drug gang and would have carried a gun.

Oh wait Sutton didn’t want that at the trial or the fact that OAD had been caught a second time running drugs. Do you think these facts might have swayed the jury as to OAD credibility and likelyhood he had a gun.

You said the prosecution and defense have to prove what they say. You mean like the comments the PROSECUTION made like “R&C said they wanted to shoot Mexicans” and other incedianry comments they alleged R&C made but never proved.

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.