Replies

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.