Because the opinion was stated with such authority I was wondering if there was something I had missed—some sort of a determination somewhere that Sutton abused his authority. In fact, I haven’t even heard that Ramos and Compean’s attorneys making that claim . . . and if they are not that is a pretty good indication of the strength of that particular argument.
After a challenge, I read and analyzed the trial transcript. What is evident in the procedure is a zealous pursuit of Ramos and Compean much more in intensity that the "car chase" the prosecution evidently successfully foists off on the jury as an indication that Ramos and Compean were bent on abusing the rights of the "victim" drug-trafficker. Why this pursuit is so zealous is the heart of this distrust of Sutton. I do not know of any abuse of power that can be attributable to Sutton, save the deliberate misinterpretation of the law concerning the discharging of a weapon, or the deliberate misrepresentation of the scope and type of immunity agreements given to the various prosecutorial witnesses some who in the record were shown to have changed their "stories". As I stated, Sutton has "misstated" some testimony after the fact, in order to keep Ramos and Compean in an unfavorable light.