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.
In other words, Johnny Sutton and Company started this ball rolling by bringing charges they clearly did not have to and, given past rulings, Sutton&Co is therefore responsible for this travesty despite Johnny Sutton's baseless assertions that he had no choice and it is all Congress's fault given mandatory sentencing.Here, whether to prosecute defendants Ramos and Compean under this statute was a matter of prosecutorial discretion; once a prosecutor decides to prosecute a law enforcement officer who has similarly used his weapon against a fleeing, suspected felon, the officer may stand trial for a violation of § 924(c). We can surely debate whether there is an intuitive distinction between a violent criminal or a drug trafficker using a gun during the course of their trade and a police officer using a gun against a fleeing felon; however, neither the statute nor the cases make such a distinction.
Regardless, it's time for Congress to get busy and clarify the language in the law so that law enforcement officers aren't hindered in performing their duties.