Posted on 07/28/2008 11:46:09 AM PDT by Nachum
That’s interesting. The “tampering with an official proceeding” charge was thrown out.
I look forward to reading the details to see what in the trial transcript they found that was in error, to throw out that particular charge.
Unfortunately, that was one of the more minor charges.
It appears that Justice Jolly wrote the opinion, and he was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Do you have any evidence that he’s a lib, or are you just guessing?
PING!
RAMOS/COMPEAN Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list.
“It’s not the court.
The GOP congress put mandatory sentencing in place.”
Oh, Ben, there you go again. NO other LEO has been charged with the statute Sutton charged these agents under. Not even by him! It was BS from the start to use it. Even the authors of the “carrying a gun in the commission of a crime” legislation said over and over it was NEVER intended to be used this way. They got stiffer sentences than a guy convicted of terrorism the other day. The appeal judges obviously didn’t agree with this sentence.
Here is the opinion — 45 pager. (haven’t read it yet)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-51489-CR0.wpd.pdf
“What was the crime they were in the commission of when they discharged their fire arms?”
THANK YOU! Defending the United States of America, according to Johnny Sutton is a crime.
So they are still stuck with the mandatory 10 year sentence?
However, this may not be of much moment to Ramos and Compean because we leave the major conviction with the major sentence—18 U.S.C. § 924(c)—untouched.
It appears to be yes.
“It appears that Justice Jolly wrote the opinion, and he was appointed by Ronald Reagan. Do you have any evidence that he’s a lib, or are you just guessing?”
Don’t you know anything? If you disagree with something a judge does he’s a liberal.
Mostly bad news:
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
The two Border Patrol agents, appellants Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, were engaged in routine law enforcement along the United States-Mexico border near Fabens, Texas, when they became involved in chasing an alien drug smuggler driving a van as he speeded toward the Mexican border. After the drug smuggler abandoned the van and began to run on foot toward the Mexican border, the agents gave chase, fired their weapons at him several times, and hit him once, but the wound did not prevent his escape into Mexico.
After the incident, there was a “cover-up”—including a clean-up of the area of spent shells and a failure by the two agents to report the weapon-firing incident, as plainly required by well-established Border Patrol policies.
But through a series of fortuitous events, the incident was revealed and then investigated by the Border Patrol. That investigation resulted in these convictions of the two agent-appellants for numerous offenses relating to unlawfully discharging their weapons and concealing the offense. They are now serving lengthy terms in prison.
At trial, the facts were sharply and hotly disputed. The government’s evidence showed that the agents had no reason to shoot the drug smuggler—that he had abandoned his van loaded with marijuana, that he was running on foot back to Mexico, that he posed no physical threat to either officer, and that he was shot in the buttocks. It is well established that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit officers to shoot a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a threat to the physical safety of the officers or to the public.
The defendants’ evidence presented a much different version of the facts from that presented by the government. They testified that they saw something appearing to be a weapon in the drug-smuggler’s hand, that the situation was tense, that they felt in danger, that they acted as reasonable officers in pursuit of a possibly dangerous drug smuggler, and that firing a weapon was justified. Furthermore, they testified that their failure to report the incident was only a matter of negligence.
Once at trial, this case was hardly more than a dispute between these two sets of facts.
The jury was the fact-finder. The jury heard all of the evidence. The jury returned the verdict. The jury did not believe the Border Patrol agents. It convicted them. The government’s evidence, if believed, is sufficient to uphold the convictions. And that is pretty close to the bottom line on guilt or innocence of these agents.
On appeal, we will address some of the errors, legal and evidentiary, alleged to have been committed by the trial court. Many arguments are made by the agents. We will address their primary arguments and we will find merit in some. Accordingly, we will reverse and vacate the convictions on some counts and vacate the sentences on those counts. However, this may not be of much moment to Ramos and Compean because we leave the major conviction with the major sentence—18 U.S.C. § 924(c)—untouched.
In this prefatory statement we should note that the rather lengthy sentences imposed on the defendants—eleven years and a day and twelve years respectively—result primarily from their convictions under § 924(c). Why? Because Congress directed a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for all defendants convicted under this statute, i.e., using a gun in relation to the commission of a crime of violence. The underlying crime of violence with which the defendants were charged is assault within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Once the defendants were charged by the government and convicted by the jury under this statute, the district court had no discretion but to impose at least a ten-year sentence. Thus, the sentences in this case reflect the mandatory ten years for violation of § 924(c), and one year and a day and two years, respectively, for the remaining several convictions.
The defendants were convicted for assault, discharge of a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence, tampering with an official proceeding, and deprivation of civil rights. We AFFIRM all convictions except those for tampering with an official proceeding, which we VACATE. We REMAND for resentencing.
We turn now to consider the appeal and begin with a more comprehensive rendition of the facts.
(snip)
I have to read the decision later, gotta go.
I’m going to back off for a while and let people digest the opinion. Even if only 10% bother to read it, that will be 10% more people capable of having an intelligent discussion about it . . . the evidence presented by the comments (so far) on this thread is grim.
I have now read most of it. I suppose it could be worse, but not by much.
“The defendants were convicted for assault, discharge of a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence,”
That is still BS. I can only take the word of the authors of this legislation, it was not meant to use against LEO’s carrying a gun for their JOB. If it was why is this the ONLY case?
I give up.
It’s about as close to a slap-down as you can get. I got the feeling that the court was sympathetic to the claim that the sentencing (under the minimum guidelines) was excessive.
I believe this is absolutely false.
What? Isn't "I THOUGHT HE HAD A GUN POINTED AT ME" a threat?
This must be a great blow to the defendants, though; their hopes must have been raised; and then, to see that they still have a ten-year sentence ahead of them, unchanged. . .
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.