Posted on 12/03/2007 4:03:22 PM PST by dynachrome
U.S. Constitution, Article 4 Section 4:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
1. The act of invading; the act of encroaching upon the rights or possessions of another; encroachment; trespass.
Bttt
Now this makes sense....Ramos and Compean were never charged with a ‘crime’ under 18 United States Code section 924(c)(1)(a) since that particular section of the code refers to Penalties, it does not state the actual Federal Crime itself...
tsk, tsk.....bad misread of the law Mr.Sutton !....and for a sitting Judge not to notice this grievous error!...That is one reason why Judges sometimes delay sentencing- in part,so they can review the laws cited..A miscarriage of justice from both the prosecutorial and the judicial points of view...
SSorry, it was on another thread, which I can’t locate at the moment.
Notice the article talks about two different things, OAD’s drug activity PRIOR to the incident in question and activity after. The article mixes up the two, even in the same statement or paragraph, so it’s almost impossible to make heads or tails of it.
I say so because alleged drug activity PRIOR to the incident would be the first I heard of it...not that they don’t have something, it’s just I’ve never seen this even form ardent supporters. That kind of evidence WOULDbe not only admissabl but important as it contradicts his statements about being a rookie.
It’s important because the additional drug run in October would have little impact on OAD’s statements at trial that this one was his first and that he wanted money for an operation for his mother. That could still ring true to jurors.
Now, I don’t believe this statement from OAD, I think it is something he cooked up to make his position look less intimidating. But the fact is unless they have solid evidence (like a previous conviction) it’s hard to rebut it.
“However, neither Mr. Ramos nor Mr. Compean was ever charged with the specific elements of the crime.”
Didn’t the conviction on the assault charge satisfy it?
Good points ......vote !
Yes - I do.
(=^..^=)
Good story. Too bad they didn’t get the perp.
Good! I was gonna have to slap you up the sidea the head! :)
BTW - I’ve searched and all I can find on this is the original article by an AP writer that says OAD told some lies to investigators during initial interviews.
That is a far cry from lying on the stand at trial as WND claims. It’s important to find out what lies he told and whether he corrected them later or if investigators found out and disregarded them. In other words, did they effect the trial?
If it isn’t as WND says, it’s a good example of how anything coming out of WND has to be taken with a grain of salt.
The issues with application of the 924(c) statute is outlined in the amicus brief filed by Gun Owners of America; Mark Brewer; Reps Poe, Goode and Jones; the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and others:
http://www.gunowners.com/amicus10.pdf
It is very well presented and shows just how low prosecutors stooped to try to put these guys away.
Don't do that! It might destroy what few rememberin' cells I gots left.
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?
Yes. At least two of them spoke out. I was wondering what the rest of them are thinking now.
Lucky person you.....
:)
Shouldn’t that get the prosecutor disbarred?
“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?”
Yes, after they and their families were threatened. Take it for what it is worth, a bone thrown to the mob to keep them off the doorstep.
This is from the last Transcript of the Trial, which is the sentencing phase..It sets out the Crimes...
it is a bit to sort out but as stated above, Sutton used the Penalty section of 18 U.S.C. 924 and tried to make it look like the crime—with minimum mandatory 10 year sentencing...That was not right, and it calls into question other parts of the case, especially since OAD lied under oath:
4
1 (Defendant Ramos sworn by the Clerk.)
2 THE COURT: Mr. Ramos, you are here today, having a
3 jury make a decision finding you guilty on Count 2, assault
4 with a dangerous weapon, and aiding and abetting. Count 3,
5 assault with serious bodily injury and aiding and abetting,
6 which carries a statutory penalty of ten years of
7 incarceration, a $250,000 fine, three years of supervised
8 release, and a $100 special assessment.
9 Count 4, discharge of a firearm in commission of a
10 crime of violence carries a ten-year minimum mandatory
11 sentence, a $250,000 fine, five years’ supervised release, and
12 a $100 special assessment.
13 Count 8, tampering with an official proceeding, Count
14 9, tampering with an official proceeding, both carry a 20-year
15 sentence, a $250,000 fine, three years of supervised release,
16 and a $100 special assessment.
17 And Count 12, deprivation of rights under color of the
18 law, carries a ten-year sentence, a $250,000 fine, three years
19 of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
20 So we are here this afternoon for your sentencing. Do
21 you understand that?
22 DEFENDANT RAMOS: Yes, ma’am.
23 THE COURT: Now, before today, a Pre-sentence
24 Investigation Report was prepared. Have you had the chance to
25 go over that with your attorney, Ms. Stillinger?
As to the verdict form of Jose Alonso Compean.:
basically same as above for Ramos
and you know, the final insult is that 4 defense Attorneys- 2 for Ramos and 2 for Compean never picked upo the 18U.S.C. 924 error.. Some defense !
I don’t dount you and as I have stated many times, the ten year mandatory was a miscarriage of justice.
Can you tell us which of thoise counts they were found guilty of?
“That was not right, and it calls into question other parts of the case, especially since OAD lied under oath:”
Where did OAD lie under oath and what evidence do you have for that?
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.