Most attorney's are yahoos in my experience.
Sorry, but a law degree doesn't impress me much.
And he knows far more about the law than you do.
Yes, but there are many attorneys who know the law at least as well as he does who disagree with him.
Go back and actually read his brief.
I have better things to do with my time.
As he shows, Sutton re-wrote the statutes to facilitate the indictment and prosecution of the agents.
Le me get this straight. You're claming that Congress called a special session when they heard about the case, and they invited Sutton in to re-write the statute, which they then proceded to rubber-stamp, just to railroad two BP guys they never heard of. Is that right?
As Brewer points out, the Courts have ruled that prosecutors cannot do that.
If they did, it would be one hell of a silly ruling, seeing as how Congress always has and always will write statutes.
For starters, the instructions to the Jury were in error, because the statutes in question were in error or deliberately misstated.
How can a statute be "in error?" Congress can pass whatever statute it wants. If you have an issue with the jury instructions, well then your beef is with the judge, not the prosecutor.
As far as Aldrete Davila is concerned, he has proven that he simply cannot be trusted.
That's why the prosecution relied on corroborating evidence.
At this point he is probably the only person who still insists he was "unarmed".
All the evidence suggests he wasn't. The behavior of Compean and Ramos suggests he wasn't.
Answer me this: if this was such a clean shoot, why did Compean and Ramos destroy evidence and lie about it to their supervisor?
Describe the evidence that Ramos destroyed. And list the lies to their supervisor. Back it up with testimony.
We're not talking about lawyers you've dealt with, we are talking about J. Mark Brewer. Avoiding the issue. Sorry, but a law degree doesn't impress me much.
As opposed to legal minds with no law degree....?
Yes, but there are many attorneys who know the law at least as well as he does who disagree with him.
Oh really...?? Show me one of these "attorneys" who actually refutes his specific arguments regarding Sutton's changing or rewording the statutes to facilitate indictment and prosecution. I want one actual name. Please provide it. And show me were I can view their counter-arguments to Brewers points. You CAN'T.
I have better things to do with my time.
Translation : You simply don't want to read his brief. So you don't even know what you are talking about. And you still expect to have any credibility...??
Le me get this straight. You're claming that Congress called a special session when they heard about the case, and they invited Sutton in to re-write the statute, which they then proceded to rubber-stamp, just to railroad two BP guys they never heard of. Is that right?
Where in the HELL did I eve say that....??? You are simply showcasing your complete ignorance of the case.
What Sutton did was to change the wording of the statute. He combined wording from the original statute with wording from the sentencing guidelines to create a altered version of the original. This is done by the prosecutor to make it easier to indict and convict in court. If you had bothered to read the brief you would have least understood this. Period.
In addition, Brewer points out that Sutton isn't the first prosecutor to pull this kind of stunt. There have been others. And the Appellete Courts have ruled that a prosecutor cannot actually modify the statutes in that fashion. That has to be done by Congress.
Congress had nothing to do with Sutton's legal malfeasance. If you had actually read the brief you would know this. Sutton realized that he could fully exploit Cardone's inexperience as a Federal Judge and he did just that.
If they did, it would be one hell of a silly ruling, seeing as how Congress always has and always will write statutes.
This was all Johnny's doing, not Congress'. Wake up.
How can a statute be "in error?" Congress can pass whatever statute it wants. If you have an issue with the jury instructions, well then your beef is with the judge, not the prosecutor.
Making a complete ass out of yourself. It was Sutton who changed the wording of the statute, NOT Congress. And he really wasn't supposed to do that.
All the evidence suggests he wasn't. The behavior of Compean and Ramos suggests he wasn't. Answer me this: if this was such a clean shoot, why did Compean and Ramos destroy evidence and lie about it to their supervisor?
Where did they actually destroy evidence...? Tossing shell casings on the ground...?? Ramos testified that he heard the other agents talking about gunshots as they were walking back up the ravine. I believe him. Ten .40 caliber rounds makes an awful lot of noise. My guess is that the other agents were talking about gun shots when the FOS arrived. Thus he assumed they already knew about it. I believe that they did. Later on, some of the other agents would change their stories.
Great thread, everyone. Reminds me of the good-old days of FR.
“Answer me this: if this was such a clean shoot, why did Compean and Ramos destroy evidence and lie about it to their supervisor?”
I can tell from the above that you do not know what a “clean shoot” is.
Also, Ramos and Compean were not questioned by their supervisor. They did not lie. They were not even asked about the shooting by their supervisor.