Posted on 02/13/2007 6:40:43 PM PST by calcowgirl
You begin to see that there was a systemic problem of border agents taking the law into their own hands.
This is referred to as the "broken glass" syndrome, where once you let people get away with little things, soon they realise there is nothing that can't be done and lawlessness breaks out.
Thanks for the ping, Sue Bob.
A must read by all.
As with Compean and Ramos, I'd like to know more,
but from what I have seen of the Prosecution tactics
and DHS-OIG, I found the story entirely believable.
I am thinking in language inappropriate for the forum after reading about Border Patrol agent Gary Burgman.
"Malicious prosecution" does not begin to plumb the depths of Johnny Sutton's tactics.
He is absolutely a traitor and something must be done about him. He needs to not only be fired but prosecuted for HIS crimes against our country and against our defenders.
To think of what Gary Burgman went through leaves me furious.
In my opinion, the government of Mexico has way too much influence with the US Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. Suppose a Mexican illegal breaks down your door and you shoot him to defend your home. Will you be arrested and sent to prison after Mexico complains?
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case Summary
Court of Appeals Docket #: 06-51489 Filed: 11/13/06
Nsuit: 0
USA v. Ramos
Appeal from: Western District of Texas, El Paso
Lower court information:
District: 0542-3 : 3:05-CR-856-1
Trial Judge: Kathleen Cardone, US District Judge
2/14/07 Record on appeal filed. Vol(s) of Paper Pleadings: 4
Vol(s) of Paper Transcripts: 30 (vols 5 and 6 as to Ramos
only) SEALED: 3 envs (1-PSI/SOR as to Ramos only) (1-doc
#'s 68, 69) (1-vols 5 & 6)[06-51489, 06-51490] ROA ddl
satisfied. (rfp) [06-51489 06-51490]
2/14/07 Supplemental record on appeal filed. Supplement #: 1 Vol(s)
of Paper Pleadings: 3 (AS TO COMPEAN ONLY) SEALED: 2 envs
(1 PSI; 1 Docs 69,76,91,106,107,122,141,143-145,147,148).
(AS TO COMPEAN ONLY) [06-51489, 06-51490] (sdh)
[06-51489 06-51490]
2/15/07 Response/opposition filed by Appellee USA in 06-51489,
Appellee USA in 06-51490 to motion for bail pending appeal
[5662712-1] by Appellant Ignacio Ramos in 06-51489,
application for bail pending appeal [5672269-1] by
Appellant Jose Alonso Compean in 06-51490. Date of COS:
2/15/07 Sufficient [Y/N]: Y [5679543-1] [06-51489,
06-51490] (mcs) [06-51489 06-51490]
2/15/07 Motion filed by Appellee USA in 06-51489, Appellee USA in
06-51490 [5679593-1] to place response/opposition under
seal [5679543-1] by Appellee USA in 06-51489,
response/opposition under seal [5679543-1] by Appellee USA
in 06-51490. Date of COS: 2/15/07 Sufficient [Y/N]: Y
[06-51489, 06-51490] (mcs) [06-51489 06-51490]
2/22/07 COURT Order filed. IT IS ORDERED that the applications
of Ramos and Compean for release pending appeal [5662712-1]
[5672269-1] from their judgments of conviction and sentence
are DENIED. The motion of Ramos to seal his appeal of the
district court's denial of bond pending appeal and/or the
memorandum in support of the motion for release pending
appeal is GRANTED. [5666888-1]. The motion of the
Government to seal its response to the appellants' motions
for release pending appeal is GRANTED. (IN DETAIL) (FPB)
Copies to all counsel. [06-51489, 06-51490] (mfn)
[06-51489 06-51490]
2/22/07 Briefing notice issued. [06-51489, 06-51490] A/Pet's Brief
due on 4/3/07 for Ignacio Ramos in 06-51489, for Jose
Alonso Compean in 06-51490. (mfn) [06-51489 06-51490]
Thank you
As far as I can tell, Vasquez's testimony was on February 24, in between Juarez and Warme. It's pretty strange the way Volume 9 reads as there is no evidence that this witness testified in between. In fact, the transition in the transcript very much looks like there was no witness in between these two.
I would place it in Volume 9, at page 179, between lines 15 and 16. Very strange.
Rohrabacher released a statement that he would hold a press conference on 2-28-2007 about Ramos/Compean. He says he has evidence that the DEA notified Sutton about OAD's second drug load. I don't think that sounds like news -- in the trial transcripts the defense lawyers knew about the second load, but maybe there were details that were not disclosed to the defense? We do know that the jury was not allowed to hear anything at all about OAD's second drug load, and I'm not sure whether that fact will help the appeal.
From Kanof's summation to the jury:
20 You know, Mr. Compean testified that the reason he
21 didn't tell anybody that -- well, he told Luis Barker -- the
22 reason that he didn't tell anybody about the shooting is
23 because, well, they always side with the aliens.
24 Of course, the agents are always cleared when they do
25 it in an hour. The agents are always cleared. Oh, but, you
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
100
1 know, we're going to shoot somebody in the back and not talk
2 about it, because it's too much paperwork.
"Of course, the agents are always cleared when they do
it in an hour. The agents are always cleared."
Bull****! Deputy Gilmer Hernandez reported the accidental shooting of an illegal and the sheriff was not going to file charges against Hernandez. Mexico wrote a letter and Johnny Sutton prosecuted. Sound familiar? He is going to be sentenced on March 12. Hmmm, Bush will be in Mexico on that date with Mexican Pres. Calderone, who will probably toast Bush with a Viejo Vergel brandy for doing him that favor.
C. Sanchez - Direct by Ms. Kanof Volume 12, 9 14 A. On March 16, we knew the bullet had come from a .40 caliber 15 Beretta, which is a weapon that the Border Patrol uses. 16 Q. Did you know whose Beretta yet? 17 A. No, ma'am.
The trial transcript says that all the defense attorneys stipulated that the bullet came from the same kind of 40 cal Beretta that Ramos had. I don't understand why the defense would do that, because as you point out, apparently the ballistics evidence was not anywhere near conclusive. Maybe Kanof misrepresented the ballistics to the defense before the trial, making it sound stronger than it really was? If the defense is swindled into stipulating something, it is my (non-lawyer) understanding that they can't dispute it later.
From Vol. 7 page 120:
22 The parties also stipulate that Mr. Correa's testimony
23 would establish that the .40 caliber bullet was expelled from
24 the Beretta .40 caliber firearm, Government's Exhibit 39.
So if the defense had already conceded that point, is Sanchez's inaccurate, or false, statement relevant? The defense could have used the discrepancy to cast doubt on the credibility of all of Sanchez's testimony, but I do not remember them doing that.
My recollection is that Sanchez has lied a lot in his testimony (and probably in his affidavit that supported the original complaint and arrest warrant). I need to try to put together a list of 'mistruths'.
As to the stipulations, those are a curiosity. There is no evidence that there was ever a report tying the bullet to Ramos' gun, only a stipulation that the prosecution would establish that through testimony. We've posted some interesting info in earlier posts, and some of the responses in between:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1784408/posts?page=215#215
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1784408/posts?page=234#234
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1784408/posts?page=273#273
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1784408/posts?page=279#279
I think an inaccuracy. On cross if it matter the defense would have asked if they knew on the 16th that it was definitely from a baretta, and Sanchez would have explained that it was one of several weapons, but that it was probable cause to continue the testing, which was the important thing.
I hope we don't have to destroy this man's life to try to save the two convicts.
About the Sipe case:
>>This was a case where the trial judge granted a new trial after the original trial and never made it to 5th circuit.<<
I think you are mistaken about this:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C03/03-40657-CR0.wpd.pdf
Exclusive Guest Post For Polipundit: Free Compean And Ramos By Duncan Hunter
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.