Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court orders resentence for Ramos, Compean
WND ^ | 7-29-08 | staff

Posted on 07/28/2008 11:46:09 AM PDT by Nachum

In a complex decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the major counts against former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean but reversed the obstruction of justice counts and sent the case back to a lower court for resentencing.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona; US: California; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: aliens; bleedingheartjudges; border; borderagents; ca5; compean; court; crimaliens; ignacioramos; immigrantlist; immigration; josecompean; judiciary; ramos; ramoscompean; resentence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-145 next last
To: CondorFlight
These guys should be pardoned, but EL Presidente would rather placate Mexico than provide justice to American citizens.
41 posted on 07/28/2008 12:58:57 PM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I read the first 8 pages, which I found to be an excellent and succinct description of the events of that day.

It is funny that we have to read a court document to get a better description of the event than we ever got from the media.


42 posted on 07/28/2008 1:06:55 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
I'm sure it was a big blow. I wouldn't be surprised if these two end up with a pardon at some point. I doubt they do the whole ten years. They have too much public support.

While I'll probably get flamed for this, I personally think these two lied through their teeth, tried to cover up this shooting and deserved to get in trouble, but the sentence was way too excessive and it's pretty darned clear that the legislators did not have this kind of case in mind when they passed this law with the ten year mandatory minimum sentence. Hopefully this makes people think twice about the wisdom in having so many long mandatory minimum sentences. There are almost always going to be times when the facts are there for a conviction under a broad interpretation of the statute but the harsh mandatory sentence is not at all warranted.

43 posted on 07/28/2008 1:07:01 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

That part of the narrative is describing statements made by them on the day of the shooting.

NOT statements they made later after they were arrested.


44 posted on 07/28/2008 1:10:08 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

Compean panicked, went Rambo, whatever (I won’t argue one or the other). Ramos got the shaft because he stuck up for his partner.


45 posted on 07/28/2008 1:11:38 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Here is the relevant portion of the ruling as regards the count they threw out:
The defendants were charged with tampering with an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) by failing to report the shooting to their supervisors.

They argue on a number of grounds that such a failure to act constitutes neither tampering with evidence nor inhibiting an official proceeding, an argument that we conclude has merit.


46 posted on 07/28/2008 1:13:23 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

At this time, there seems little interest in changing the law to suggest it does not apply to LEOs who use a weapon while committing a crime.

Maybe once you get past this specific case, legislators really DON’T want to give special treatment to police officers who commit crime with their weapons.

In fact, one could argue that a police officer commiting a crime should be prosecuted more severely, because of the trust we put in them to enforce the laws. A police officer breaking the law causes more damage to society than a guy off the street.


47 posted on 07/28/2008 1:16:05 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MBB1984
These guys should be pardoned, but EL Presidente would rather placate Mexico than provide justice to American citizens.

He better do something before McCain gets in, he'd give them the death sentence for shooting at one of his favored constituents.

48 posted on 07/28/2008 1:23:24 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Their only “crime” was they actually attempted to defend the southern border of the United States against foreign invaders and criminals.

If they had looked the other way, they would be free men today.


49 posted on 07/28/2008 1:25:05 PM PDT by Deo volente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

I’m through about to page 20.

The court makes an extensive discussion of the immunity agreement.

My observation is that the defense was trying to get the court to grant immunity to Davila for the October incident, so that they could get him to testify about it.

If they had succeeded, Davila would still be a free man.

Because the defense failed, Davila was eventually arrested and charged in the October crime.


50 posted on 07/28/2008 1:26:43 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: pfflier
"OK, that says some of the charges against them had some substance in the view of the 5th circuit."

That may depend on your definition of substance, I think that appeals only review the proceedings themselves, not the evidence or strength/weakness of the case.

In this case they did not find substantial error in any of the court's actions, admitted that the jury could have gone either way, and only found that an agency inquiry does not equate to a judicial investigation and therefore does not merit a guilty verdict.

Seems to me that their findings are strained by the manner in which the agents were denied evidence on the nature of the perp and by stretching 'crime' to cover police judgement in the course of their duties.
It actually seems that this should never have gone to trial, but that's a different issue.

Any lawyers out there to correct me?

51 posted on 07/28/2008 1:30:45 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Pistolshot
New sentence: Time served PLUS ownership of every dime of assets currently possessed by that jackass prosecutor

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on the "use of a firearm in a crime of violence" count, so they still face a mandatory minimum of 10 years each.

52 posted on 07/28/2008 1:31:30 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
On page 30 of the court ruling, they specifically note that this law has been applied to LEOs at least two other times within this same circuit, so the statement that this is the only case of the law ever being applied to LEOs is incorrect:
The defendants therefore advance the argument that the application of the statute to the facts of this case is novel, i.e., did not provide them with fair warning, because its application here frustrates the statute’s legislative purpose, has no support in the cases of this circuit, and makes for bad public policy. But cases in our circuit have permitted application of § 924(c)(1)(A) to police officers. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 343 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Winters 105 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1997).

53 posted on 07/28/2008 1:40:03 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: norton

I’m not a lawyer, but the general rule-of-thumb is that appeals courts rule on issues that are matters of law, whereas lower courts rule on substance, evidence, whatever. Does that help?


54 posted on 07/28/2008 1:44:34 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
This is an asinine law in the first place. It says that if a firearm is discharged in the commission of a crime of violence or a drug crime, there has to be a mandatory 10 year sentence. Mere possession of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug crime requires a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence even if the gun never leaves the holster, or the vehicle. Law enforcement officers tend to carry guns. They also tend get in heated confrontations with people and if things get out of hand and the officer steps out of line somewhat and roughs someone up a little, conduct constitution a misdemeanor battery or something, or even just uses threats of violence, he could be charged under this statute and have to do a 5 year mandatory minimum sentence even if his gun never leaves his holster. That's crazy. If he deserves 30 days in jail, by all means stick him in jail for 30 days, but 5 years because of this stupid law? The law is the problem. It's just one of many laws put in place by gun grabbers and those that just love to keep creating new crimes and figuring out more and more ways to enhance sentences and over fill our prisons even more.
55 posted on 07/28/2008 1:56:04 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on the "use of a firearm in a crime of violence" count,

They were not charged with "use of a firearm in a crime of violence"; they were actually charged with "illegally discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence". That is why the conviction against them is bogus. Sutton deliberately reworded the statute to facilitate the conviction. He can't be allowed to get away with that.

This same court had ruled that "discharging" a firearm did not constitute an separate crime or an element of the crime. Prosecutors have to use the statute as it was written.

56 posted on 07/28/2008 1:58:47 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Yes, I read it.


57 posted on 07/28/2008 1:59:08 PM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Read post # 56. The agents got screwed again.

Read J.Mark Brewer's legal brief.

Here :

In actuality, they have yet to actually be charged with violating 924(c)-1-A.

I'd be willing to push this thing to the Supreme Court.

This sucks.

58 posted on 07/28/2008 2:03:41 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I finished. Here is the summary from the court, all judges concurring. This summary won't be liked by those who believed the court case was hopelessly flawed.:
We conclude. For the most part, the trial of this case was about credibility, and although the jury could have gone either way, it chose not to believe the defendants’ version of the crucial events of February 17. The trial of the case was conducted fairly and without reversible error.

The exclusion of evidence relating to the size of the marijuana load and Aldrete-Davila’s alleged involvement in drug-trafficking events of October 2005 did not violate the defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights to present a complete defense nor did it deny them a proper cross-examination of a witness against them.

They were denied no right of due process for lack of notice that § 924(c) could be applied to police officers while performing law enforcement duties. Nor was the § 924(c)indictment defective. Moreover, the defendants were properly convicted of substantive crimes, not for violating Border Patrol policies. In instructing the jury, no reversible errors were committed and, finally, the evidence fully supports the jury verdict. We therefore affirm the convictions for counts 1 through 5 and counts 11 and 12.

However, we reverse and vacate the convictions for obstruction of justice under § 1512(c)—counts 6 through 10 of the indictment—because the Border Patrol investigation was not an “official proceeding” within the meaning of the statute. We therefore remand for resentencing not inconsistent with this opinion.

Repeating the portion most relevant for those who have argued this case for what seems like an eternity:

the evidence fully supports the jury verdict
Three members of the 5th circuit -- judges of high standing and caliber, with experience, examined the trial records in detail, and conclude that the evidence FULLY SUPPORT the jury verdict.

I trust that these men know the law better than most of us here, and that they knew how to read the court transcripts, and the arguments made by the government and the defendants in briefs to the appeals court.

59 posted on 07/28/2008 2:04:58 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Cyropaedia
Sutton deliberately reworded the statute to facilitate the conviction.

At this stage of the game, you have the 5th Circuit staring you in the face.

60 posted on 07/28/2008 2:07:16 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-145 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson