Posted on 02/13/2007 6:40:43 PM PST by calcowgirl
The complete (I think) transcript was filed with the Court on Friday and entered in the Court record yesterday. The DOJ is hosting the transcripts on their website in a series of 18 PDF Files. They range in size from 5 pages to over 300 pages, covering pretrial matters, sentencing, as well as testimony.
The transcripts are linked at the site above, as well as most of the press releases issued by the U.S. Attorney office on this matter.
I am setting up this thread (in chat) as a place for us junkies can comment on the testimony and to post any revelations anyone might find. Have at it!!!!
VOLUME I: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%201.pdf
VOLUME II: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%202.pdf
VOLUME III: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%203.pdf
VOLUME IV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%204.pdf
VOLUME V: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%205.pdf
VOLUME VI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%206.pdf
VOLUME VII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%207.pdf
VOLUME VIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%208.pdf
VOLUME IX: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%209.pdf
VOLUME X: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2010.pdf
VOLUME XI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2011.pdf
VOLUME XII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2012.pdf
VOLUME XIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2013.pdf
VOLUME XIV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2014.pdf
VOLUME XV: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2015.pdf
VOLUME XVI: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2016.pdf
VOLUME XVII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2017.pdf
VOLUME XVIII: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/Volume%2018.pdf
.
IMHO, these transcripts will be studied for years to come, and will form the basis of discussions in political and legal ethics, and government.
The question is did the prosecution operate in good faith, did they operate just up to the edge of impropriety and ethical standards...or did they step completely over it?
Hey, I'm a civil trial lawyer. "Giglio" means nothing to me. I'll keep that in mind as I read the transcript, though.
When I look at the totality of the whole incident, I see the fingerprints of an agenda. Starting with the use of the SWAT Teams to arrest these two officers (plus the same in arresting Dog Chapman) way overboard.
One does not use a SWAT Team to to serve warrants ... unless there is also a desire for blood. Bottom line is SWAT Teams are used to send a message, so to speak.
Then add in the fact that Mexico's government, a drug infested Mafioso operation at best, sticks their nose in?
Supposedly, this is about rule of law, but yet Bush (God forgive me for voting for him) is about to pardon 15 to 25 million law breakers?
YOU SAID..."But Sutton needed that bogus charge to "piggyback" 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)."
Good point.
This statute, as I read it, would imply that the crime of violence (primary charge), can stand on its own basis, independent of the action of using a gun while committing it.
This must be true, else the logical premise of the statute goes away.
Example..I could rape (primary charge) a woman, be caught, and prosecuted for rape. If I committed the crime on Federal property using a handgun, I could in addition to the penalty for rape (primary), be assessed an additional ten years for using a gun (aggravating)while commiting the violent crime (primary).
The statue language makes plain that the intent is to add the two penalties (primary + aggravating)together to get a composite sentence.
In this case, however, Im confused, because only one action took place..the act of firing a gun.
The Feds say it was assault...the agents say it was self defense.
Ramos, in particular, had no other contact with the perp, he simply came upon the scene, and thinking his partner was in danger, he fired at the perp.
Using the logic of the statute, he would be guilty of using a gun (aggravating) while using a gun (primary) in a crime of violence.
Am I making sense here?
I think it relates to what you are saying.
In other words...if the two agents had encountered the perp...had beat him severely, and, while incapacitated, they also shot him, they would be guilty of assault (primary), plus the shooting (aggravating).
They would have been convicted of Attempted Murder...as you say, and the statute would have been appropriate.
Me too. I am also an attorney.
Well, we do have a lot in common.
It appears so. This is how wrongful convictions happen. We have to trust govt. functionaries. Then, if somebody finds out that they hid exculpatory evidence, the defendants have a new chanced. But they have to find this out.
As the BCP officer stated he saw something in the dirtbag's hand, coupled with the fact the dirtbag fled the area so we don't know what was in his hand, then it's reasonable.
Add in the later discovery of the van full of weed and the officers' actions again meet the test.
The treating doctor also testified that the dirtbag was turned, consistent with pointing an object.
This case, along with the Deputy Hernandez case would have never been filed in my former jurisdiction ... unless there was a huge amount of pressure. Then it would have been handed off to a dud deputy DA.
Some other issues that I feel are relevant are the use of an active serving officer of the Army Medical Corp testifying in a civilian case.
He's not a witness that saw a robbery go down, he was specificly used. I suspect some kind of ground work is being laid there. Keep in mind that the treatment on the Army base was not an emergency, but via an appointment. Why?
Perhaps the Administration is trying to insult the wounded GI's in that facility. But that's just my (low) opinion of Bush showing through.
Federal agencies just don't 'swap' favors like this.
I'm certain doctors working in border towns are just as well equipped to treat gunshot wounds as anywhere else.
I recall during the build up to Gulf War I, we had a a detachment of Army and Navy doctors observing in our county ER. At times they were three deep, making it kinda hard for me to try and get dying declarations ;^)
Vol 12, p. 63-64 C. Sanchez - Cross by Ms. Stillinger 3 BY MS. STILLINGER: 4 Q. You told me, when we talked last week -- and I'm talking 5 about talking in court, when I was questioning you last week. 6 You told me that you just found out about the $5 million claim 7 that Mr. Aldrete-Davila filed. I think you said you found out 8 sometime around May or June. Is that right? 9 A. I believe it was May. 10 Q. Okay. Did you know that Rene Sanchez had advised 11 Mr. Aldrete-Davila about that? 12 A. No, ma'am, I did not. 13 Q. Okay. Did you know that Rene Sanchez had talked to 14 Aldrete-Davila about immunity? 15 A. No, ma'am, I did not. 16 Q. Okay. And did you know that he found him a lawyer? 17 A. No, ma'am, I did not. 18 Q. Did you just find that out for the first time when 19 Aldrete-Davila testified last week? 20 A. Yes, ma'am. (snip) 20 Q. Okay. Did you know that Rene Sanchez and Aldrete-Davila 21 had spent time together socially in Mexico between the time of 22 the shooting and today? 23 A. No, ma'am. 24 Q. Okay. Did you find that out in court for the first time 25 last week? 1 A. Yes, ma'am. 2 Q. Okay. Did you ever ask either one of them about that? 3 A. No, ma'am. 4 Q. Okay. I think you said that you were extra cautious about 5 the relationship between Rene Sanchez and Mr. Aldrete-Davila, 6 correct? 7 A. I believe said I kept it in the back of my mind. 8 Q. Okay. Were you ever given any information about Rene 9 Sanchez that caused you to be more cautious as this 10 investigation wore on? 11 A. No, ma'am. 12 Q. Okay. Do you recall getting a memo in July of this year -- 13 I'm sorry, of last year -- pertaining to Mr. Sanchez? 14 MS. KANOF: Objection, Your Honor. Approach the bench?
So are these the transcripts that Johnny Sutton was personally withholding on orders from the White House and its drug overlords?
VOLUME 12, Page 65-66 C. Sanchez - Cross by Ms. Stillinger Q. Okay. Do you recall getting a memo in July of this year -- 13 I'm sorry, of last year -- pertaining to Mr. Sanchez? 14 MS. KANOF: Objection, Your Honor. Approach the 15 bench? 16 THE COURT: All right. 17 (Bench conference:) 18 MS. KANOF: You haven't made a ruling, Judge, on the 19 admissibility of the Nolan Blanchette memo. That's what she's 20 going into, that Nolan Blanchette told his supervisors that 21 Rene Sanchez had information about horse trailers being used to 22 traffic. 23 MS. STILLINGER: I don't think you have made a ruling 24 because there hasn't been an objection before the Court yet. 25 THE COURT: I understand. You did provide me with 1 the -- the memo. I have reviewed it. 2 And where are you going with all of this? What's the 3 relevance? 4 MS. STILLINGER: He just said -- I think Rene 5 Sanchez's credibility is relevant. I think his evaluation -- 6 THE COURT: How are you impeaching his credibility 7 with that? 8 MS. STILLINGER: Well, Ms. Kanof had him testify a lot 9 about who he believed and who he didn't believe and the steps 10 he took in his investigation, based on what he believed and 11 what he didn't believe. This guy gets a memo in July, where 12 somebody is saying -- not terrible, but saying, I have concerns 13 about Rene Sanchez. And it's not terrible, but he seems 14 unusually well informed. 15 This witness does -- instead of investigating it, he 16 turns the memo over to Rene Sanchez, so Rene Sanchez can call 17 Blanchette and say, Why are you writing these things about me? 18 It's not normal behavior. 19 It's not normal behavior, I don't think, for an OIG 20 agent to turn over an investigatory memo within hours of having 21 received it, turn it over to the subject of the memo. And I 22 think that shows his bias in this investigation. 23 THE COURT: I guess my concern is, this guy has 24 already been indicted, has he not? 25 MS. STILLINGER: Right. ...
Thanks for posting these, by the way.
You're welcome.
Looks like I will discover how long it takes to read the transcripts for a two-and-a-half week trial.
Ramos admitted that he fired a shot. I believe his testimony is in vol 13.
pg 45: He didn't hear anyone yell "hit him", even though Compean and Juarez did.
pg 62-63: Testifies about a "gun exchange," but then says that he can't distinguish between the sound of a .40 caliber pistol and other pistols...even though he is a firearms instructor.
p 64: States he did not see Compean picking up casings.
p 82: His reasoning for why he did not report the shooting is very, very hard to believe....he "had alot on his mind."
In one of these volumes, the judge admonishes the attorneys (particularly defense counsel) for focusing so heavily on the pursuit, noting that it was not key to any of the charges, and that the attorneys were losing the jury. When an attorney is saying "look over there," and failing to focus on the crux of the issue (her client is getting killed on cross), then juries tend to believe that something is not right.
In my years of practice, one axiom rings true: no matter how good or bad the evidence is, if the jury doesn't like your client, you are going to have a bad day. Ramos and Compean just do not come across well, for whatever reason. These things do happen...every witness I've ever had on the stand that has been well prepared has come up with some "fact" or "memory" that they didn't recall through years of questioning. Trials are stressful...so you just move on and try to fix the damage. Here, neither Ramos nor Compean seemed very well prepared, and their attorney did little on redirect to fix the damage done on cross. And the cross on Compean was a rather poor cross at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.