What Happened To Justice In America? (Compean & Ramos)

humanevents.com ^ | 08/04/2008 ET | Rep. Dana Rohrabacher

[kellynla]

What happened to justice in America? It certainly wasn’t served on July 28 when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the unjust convictions of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. As it stands today, these two brave border protectors must now serve out their full 10-plus-year sentences for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler they encountered while he was carrying a million-dollar payload of narcotics along the Southern border in Texas. What started off as simple procedural mistakes by the agents has turned into an unimaginable travesty of justice unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my 30 years in Washington, D.C.

It’s difficult to reconcile why U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton would choose to seek out drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, in Mexico to offer him immunity, unconditional border-crossing cards and free medical care in exchange for his testimony against the border agents. Ramos and Compean did not wake up the morning of Feb.17, 2005, with the intention of committing a crime, unlike the illegal alien drug-smuggling “victim.” They put on their uniforms, strapped their weapons around their waists and pinned on their badges, as they had for five and 10 years respectively, with the intention of patrolling our borders to protect America.

[Issaquahking]

Can't believe this has happened in America!

President Bush -Pardon these men now!!!

[1rudeboy]

Yes, in fact, you are limited by my credulity. For example, a systemic source of error in your analysis is the fact that you did not see and hear the testimony.

We all have the transcript of the trial, but it's impossible to tell whether the person testifying is speaking, scowling, fidgeting, or picking his nose. To suggest that it doesn't matter (or ignore it) is arrogance.

And incidentally, if you had been a member of that jury and visited the scene (without permission) you would have been summarily removed from the deliberation. (Not trying to change the subject).

[AndrewC]

We all have the transcript of the trial, but it's impossible to tell whether the person testifying is speaking, scowling, fidgeting, or picking his nose

You don't have to see a person picking their nose to determine if what they are saying is counter to other facts.

Davila's testimony on this. Vol 8 pg 38

1 you got to the ditch, you jumped out of the van as it was still
2 moving, correct?
3 A. No. I stopped the van first.
4 Q. And you opened the door and got down?
5 A. Yes.

Compean's testimony Vol 13 pg 153

2 Q. So do you see him arrive?
3 A. Yes, sir, I do.
4 Q. What happens?
5 A. When he started -- he was maybe about 10 to 15 feet away
6 from the -- from the edge of the ditch. I saw the driver's
7 side door open, and I observed him jump out.
8 Q. He jumped out of a moving vehicle?
9 A. Yes, sir, he did.

To suggest that delivery of facts changes those facts is the arrogant position. If the factors that you state are unequivocal measurements of truth, Ted Bundy would be walking around free instead of pushing up daisies.

Finally, your incidental note is irrelevant to the fact that I got a better view of the environment at the ditch than the jury did.

If you don't see the relevance of the picture, you can see that the driver door is blocked by dirt. Davila did not open that door while the van was in that position. He jumped out of a van which was moving as Compean testified. And no, the agents did not pile dirt on the door in anticipation of Compean's testimony a year later.

[1rudeboy]

The jury is tasked to judge the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. Posting a fuzzy photo on the internet years after the fact is meaningless.

So let's approach this from an analytical perspective. Heck, pretend I'm a judge. I'm looking at conflicting testimony: 1. the van was, and 2. the van was not. What is your point, counselor? You can't argue "it goes to credibility" because I'm allowing the testimony.

[Kenny Bunk]

Boy, this jury was composed of denizens of the Border (AKA La Zona de Tolerancia) and had the collective IQ of a creosote bush.

After they rendered their verdict, they got all weepy and contrite. Had they been normal American citizens as opposed to the anchor baby offspring of illegals in this area, they might have been capable of something more like mature reflection.

This entire region, (and most of the Border Patrol) is more or less semi-mexicanized and very short of straight-shooters. Typical: René Sanchez, the BP Officer-cuate of the smuggler, who facilitated this whole travesty. Looking for a guy to investigate? Try that scumbag.

[1rudeboy]

Actually, my understanding is that juries in this district are generally sympathetic to Border Patrol cases, and they see their share of them. And there’s a reason why juries deliberate, and judges sentence, and never the twain do meet. It’s an element of our adversarial system.

[AndrewC]

The jury is tasked to judge the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies. Posting a fuzzy photo on the internet years after the fact is meaningless.

Of course they determine credibility but they also use concrete items such as the picture you complain about. That picture is one of those taken at the scene by the supervisor and fuzzy or not, it clearly demonstrates that Compean was telling the truth about something that Davila was lying about. That is the credibility that you are harping about.

[Kenny Bunk]

juries deliberate

That this jury was rather badly instructed is also a factor in this case. I know nothing of the voir dire, but I am willing to bet that one or two were chosen because of an illegal alien family connection. Sutton's team had a great many more resources in this area than the defense.

I understand that at one point, the jury was for acquittal, but was dissuaded by one or two members to go otherwise. Call me cynical, but in this area of the country, corrupted by huge amounts of drug money at every level of law enforcement and administration, I trust nothing.. and no one.

[1rudeboy]

I will not argue that the jury instructions were “good.” The 5th Circuit ruled on the jury instructions, however.

[calcowgirl]

juries in this district are generally sympathetic to Border Patrol cases

From Johnny Sutton's mouth to your keyboard.

Several freepers from Texas said otherwise at the time Sutton made this assertion.

[1rudeboy]

I will remind you that this case was in Federal Court. So I suppose I can now claim, “from the NBPC to your keyboard.” Funny, how those with a vested interest in proving jury bias in Federal Court never get around to proving it.

[calcowgirl]

Funny, how those with a vested interest in proving jury bias in Federal Court never get around to proving it.

The only one claiming bias was you--asserting that "juries in this district are generally sympathetic to Border Patrol cases."

As I said, from Johnny Sutton's mouth to your keyboard:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1770951/posts

Jan 20, 2007

Johnny Sutton: "And juries, especially in El Paso, are very sympathetic to Border Patrol; they give them the benefit of the doubt time and time again, because they live in that community, they protect that community, and they are heroes in that community"

[1rudeboy]

On the other hand (it always comes down to that), the observation that members of the jury expressed remorse at the verdict (a fact) indicates that the jury was sympathetic to the defendants.

That is the burden that people who are arguing jury bias must overcome. And as an aside, you have provided your share of substantive arguments regarding other issues. This argument is not substantive. Yet.

[billmor]

Pres. Bush should remember his original motto: Compassionate Conservatism...All we have seen is a bit of conservatism here and there along with a smattering of compassion...If you want to do something that is really coompassionate you should pardon Ramos and Compean...Don’t wait for the Courts to overturn their case- it isn’t going to happen...

But we don’t think you will..and so this will end the Bush era of politics...in like a lion cub...out like a pussy...

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

“Why do you have such a difficult time understanding plain English? I clearly stated that I thought Ramos and Compean did the right thing. They fired at Davila with cause. He refused to obey lawful commands and then made threatening motions. I went on to say that whether he had been hit or not was irrelevant to assault even if the officers had acted incorrectly which they, in my opinion, did not.”

Sorry. I misunderstood. I think I made a presumption that when you referred to assault, I thought you were referring to the legal term used for the crime of assault. I have seen many here on this board that believe any assault is illegal and I presumed the same for you. You have clarified and I understand you were referring to assault as an attack, not necessarily an illegal attack.

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

Being shot at, does not equal being hit by. You still have not proven, either that Davilla was unarmed, nor that he was hit by Compean or Ramos, only that Compean and Ramos did shoot.

[Linden1209]

You obviously know little of the case. When Rep. Dana Rohrabacher. Rep. Duncan Hunter and other good men stand up for the Border Guards, you can take it to the bank. Defense evidence was not allowed, the drug mule was given several border passes so he could continue his drug running and many other perks to bring this case to trial and convict good, honest men. This case goes all the way to the WH and to the Mexican equivalent.Don’t dismiss this lightly. Besides being an injustice to the Ramos and Campeon, their families are suffering. And,tt has put a chill on our Border Patrol.

[Linden1209]

Where did you get that bit of nonsense? Must be brainwashed by LULAC, Aztlan, MEChA, La Raza, et. al.

[Linden1209]

But how do we know the whole trial was not a “done deal” from the start? After all, Bush and Fox were thick as thieves with Fox in the driver’s seat. I think something smells.

[rednesss]

"When Rep. (Insert any politician). Rep. (insert any politician) and other good con men stand up for the Border Guards, you can take it to the bank outhouse." There, I fixed it for you.

Please, I know plenty about the case, I've read most of the trial transcripts, Ramos and Compean were their own worst witnesses. When a politician runs in front of a microphone you can bet that the only reason for it is to advance their own career. I got a huge chuckle out of your naiveness.

Of course certain things are admissible and certain things are not admissible, courts have rules, they apply to everyone, equally, for really good reasons.