I don’t think the Border Patrol agents should be in jail, but having said that, I do not see the relevance of whether the witness lied about being a repeat drug importer.
The BP said he thought he saw a gun in the perp’s hand.
The prosecution said there was no gun, and offered as proof the testimony of the perp that he didn’t have a gun.
But ... if there was evidence introduced that the perp lied about not being a repeat drug importer.... there is no reason to believe that he would lie about not having a gun ... and so the jury could discount his testimony entirely.
Now .. could the jury convict the BP beyond a reasonable doubt of shooting the perp without reason when there was uncontested testimony that he saw a gun and fired his weapon to defend himself???
I think not.
“But ... if there was evidence introduced that the perp lied about not being a repeat drug importer.... there is no reason to believe that he would lie about not having a gun ... and so the jury could discount his testimony entirely.”
Jury members said they gave no weight to OVD’s testimony...the cover up and inconsistent testimony of R&C was what convicted them.