New sentendce: Time served.
This is great news, I hope they are back with their families soon.
Read the headline. Read the article. Read the last paragraph.
Alot of Freepers have been slamming the President for not doing that but now that a judicial review agrees with some of the charges, he was right more than he was wrong...again.
No trouble keeping people in jail when the liberal judges want to do so, just when they don’t.
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.
PING!
RAMOS/COMPEAN Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list.
Here is the opinion — 45 pager. (haven’t read it yet)
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-51489-CR0.wpd.pdf
So they are still stuck with the mandatory 10 year sentence?
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)
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.
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.
Send some moral support what ever happens.
Ignacio Ramos #58079-180
FCI Phoenix
Federal Correctional Institution
37910 N. 45th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85086
Jose Compean #58080180
FCI Elkton
PO Box 10
Lisbon, OH 44432
This is not good.
Any proper court would have reversed all counts, particularly with the present state of the facts Re: the ‘witness.’
The opinion has a "hot potato" look to it...
They should have dropped all charges, awarded them back pay and restitution for false imprisonment, and given them a hero’s homecoming.
That was probably the only count where they were actually guilty. The more serious charges should have been overturned, and this one left in place if they wanted to be just.