Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two reports clash on agents - study also fails to back what House members were told (Ramos/Compean)
San Bernardino Sun ^ | 02/08/2007 | Sara A. Carter

Posted on 02/08/2007 10:21:37 AM PST by calcowgirl

A new Department of Homeland Security report about two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a drug smuggler directly contradicts key conclusions reached by the department's own investigator on the case.

The report also does not support assertions about the agents made by the department's Office of Inspector General to several members of Congress during a private meeting last fall.

The Report of Investigation, written Nov. 20 - 21 months after the shooting - and released Wednesday, concludes that nine other agents at the scene of the shooting did not know it had taken place and thus were not responsible for reporting it.

The report states that Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean shot smuggler Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, then tried to cover up the incident by failing to file a report. It also asserts that the other agents on the scene were not aware shots had been fired.

All the names - other than Ramos, Compean and Aldrete- Davila - of those at the shooting scene, as well as several pages of the Border Patrol's firearms policy, were blacked out in the report.

"Subsequently, the DHS OIG investigation found no evidence to suggest that (names redacted) had any knowledge of an assault on a BP agent, nor did (names redacted) have any knowledge of a reportable shooting incident ...," the report states.

But that finding directly contradicts a Department of Homeland Security memo written March 12, 2005 - less than a month after the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting - by Christopher Sanchez, the original investigating officer for the Homeland Security Inspector General's Office.

In the memo, one of several confidential Homeland Security documents about the incident obtained by The Sun's sister newspaper based in Ontario, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, Sanchez wrote that all the Border Patrol agents on scene, including two supervisors, knew about the shooting when it happened and failed to report it.

"Investigation disclosed that the following Border Patrol agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and/or knew/heard about the shooting: Oscar Juarez, Arturo Vasquez, Jose Mendoza, David Jaquez, Lance Medrano, Lorenzo Yrigoyen, Rene Mendez, Robert Arnold, and Jonathan Richards," Sanchez wrote.

Richards and Arnold were the supervisors on scene.

Further, Border Patrol firearms policy prohibits agents involved in a shooting from filing a written report on the incident, as reported earlier this week.

The policy requires that supervisors or investigators file the report within three hours of the incident.

"Ensure that supervisory personnel ... are aware that employees involved in a shooting incident shall not be required or allowed to submit a written statement of the circumstances surrounding the incident," according to the firearms policy.

The report released Wednesday also fails to support assertions made about Compean and Ramos by Office of Inspector General officials to four members of Congress during a private meeting in September.

At that meeting, OIG employees speaking on behalf of Inspector General Richard Skinner told the congressmen that the agents "were out to shoot Mexicans" the day they shot Aldrete-Davila, and that the smuggler posed no threat to them.

Nothing in the new report backs up either of those assertions.

On Monday, Skinner, in testimony before the House Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, admitted under oath that the congressmen were given false information about the agents by high-ranking members of his department.

Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, one of the four congressmen, on Wednesday demanded the resignation of all investigators and Office of Inspector General officials who misled the congressmen.

According to Culberson's office, Elizabeth Redman, assistant inspector general for investigations under Skinner, made the allegations to House members and promised that evidence against the agents would be provided.

Inspector General Congresssional Liaison Tamara Faulkner also was at the September meeting on behalf of Skinner.

Neither Redman nor Faulkner could be reached for comment Wednesday.

Skinner also was questioned Wednesday at a House Homeland Security subcommittee on Management, Oversight and Investigations hearing by Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, who also was at the September meeting. Skinner apologized to McCaul for the OIG employees' unsupported statements about the agents.

McCaul has called for a congressional hearing into the matter.

"While I appreciated Mr. Skinner's accepting his office's mistakes, the fact remains that members of Congress were, at the very least, misled, and at most outright lied to," McCaul said. "Hearings need to be held about this, and more questions need answering."

TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said the report released by the Inspector General's Office should not be trusted now that Skinner has admitted his office deceived the congressmen.

"This report is a transparent attempt to justify the government's inexcusable prosecution of two innocent law-enforcement officers," Bonner said. "Rather than being an objective recitation of facts, it is interspersed with innuendo, misrepresentations, and outright lies."

Compean and Ramos were convicted in March of shooting Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks, violating his civil rights and attempting to cover up their actions. They were sentenced to 12 and 11 years, respectively, in federal prison.

Aldrete-Davila was found to be driving a van with nearly $1 million of marijuana. He is suing the Border Patrol for $5 million.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; borderagents; compean; immigrantlist; politicalprisoners; railroadjob; ramos; ramosandcompean; saraacarter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 02/08/2007 10:21:44 AM PST by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Looks like these guys were nifonged.


2 posted on 02/08/2007 10:25:13 AM PST by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Richards and Arnold were the supervisors on scene.

Further, Border Patrol firearms policy prohibits agents involved in a shooting from filing a written report on the incident, as reported earlier this week.

The policy requires that supervisors or investigators file the report within three hours of the incident.

Not filing the report is the crux of the whole case against the Border Agents!

3 posted on 02/08/2007 10:32:42 AM PST by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin; Arizona Carolyn; Calpernia; CAluvdubya; christynsoldier; Cyropaedia; dennisw; Digger; ...

Sara Carter ping!


4 posted on 02/08/2007 10:32:43 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS

Wonder what elected office the D.A. is running for??
Jack


5 posted on 02/08/2007 10:34:39 AM PST by btcusn (Giving up the right to arms is a mistake a free people get to make only once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; Kimberly GG
The WH is letting this turn into another fiasco of the level of the Dubai Ports and Harriet Miers.

Maybe the reason is this from another thread:

U.S. retracts statements that agents were out `to shoot Mexicans'
  Posted by Kimberly GG to TomGuy
On News/Activism 02/08/2007 11:43:36 AM CST · 40 of 45

"Posts in other threads have indicated a close relationship between Prosecutor Sutton and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales."


"Mr. Sutton also serves as the chairman of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee (AGAC) which plays a significant role in determining policies and programs of the Department and in carrying out the national goals set by the President and the Attorney General."

I guess we know what those goals are now, don't we!
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/us_attorney/index.html


6 posted on 02/08/2007 10:35:18 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HEY4QDEMS

Don't let them resign, FIRE THEM.


7 posted on 02/08/2007 10:38:24 AM PST by stumpy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

My gawd, read this.


8 posted on 02/08/2007 10:39:32 AM PST by dirtboy (Duncan Hunter 08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

This report really deserves something great for her reporting...


9 posted on 02/08/2007 10:45:53 AM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Culberson is great. Heard him for the 1st time last night on Savage.


10 posted on 02/08/2007 10:47:57 AM PST by Ieatfrijoles (Incinerate Riyadh Now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn
Here is oneReporter Sara Carter honored for immigration stories - Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
11 posted on 02/08/2007 10:53:42 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
I thought the White House had hired Tony Snow specifically to prevent the tone-deaf response they showed in the past in connection with the Harriet Miers nomination and the Dubai Ports deal. However, all Snow has accomplished was misrepresenting himself on the Laura Ingraham show and to Roger Hedgcock (substituting on Rush) about his reviewing the Compean and Ramos trial transcripts, which have yet to be prepared. Has Tony Snow become the Administration's answer to the infamous Baghdad Bob?
12 posted on 02/08/2007 10:56:06 AM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

ping


13 posted on 02/08/2007 11:14:00 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Rep. Culberson on the Rush Limbaugh show with Roger Hedgcock now..

Chertoff has got to go..
Now!


14 posted on 02/08/2007 11:15:38 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Good for her, well deserved. I still worry for her safety.


15 posted on 02/08/2007 11:17:52 AM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; calcowgirl

I never thought he should have been confirmed and nothing that has transpired since has changed my conviction.


16 posted on 02/08/2007 11:19:04 AM PST by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

I swear they do a bet job at truth on the tv. The border agents need to be released from jail immediately. For the life of me; I can't understand how these two were arrested; much less put in jail.


17 posted on 02/08/2007 11:33:18 AM PST by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Note that the original March 2005 investigative report may have simply been reporting what the agents told the investigator. We'd have to see the detais or depose Sanchez to ask if he did interviews with all of the agents at the scene, or based his investigation on interviews with Compean and Ramos.

That's why I'm not too interested in the investigative report memos -- they are simply a reporting of what people SAID about the case.

We need to see what people testified to under oath to understand why the jurors found them guilty. And to see if there are actual facts now indisputed which were incorrectly presented (or not presented) at the trial.


18 posted on 02/08/2007 11:41:01 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

ah yes, HM and DP, two other cases where hysteria and hype far outstripped rational thought.

In one case we seem to have gotten lucky, as in the end when the facts were actually known, sufficient cause was found to support having HM withdraw her nomination, unfortunately at a high cost to Bush and to conservatives who had jumped the gun and given ammunition to the left to use on other court nominees.

BP was simply a disaster for conservatives. Jumping into bed with Schumer, who's only purpose was to make Bush look bad and get one of the ports for his union-thug democrat contributers. And what single bad thing has happened in this country since DP took over the ports? Where is the continued outcry over the threat to our way of life that was certain to follow if the deal went through?


19 posted on 02/08/2007 11:44:50 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Harriet Miers had no "paper trail", and the few public statements she had made indicated sentiments that were not conservative nor strict constructionist. The outcry against her led to the nomination and confirmation of Samuel Alito, a roven conservative jurist. In this case, what you describe as "hysteria and hype" accomplished something positive.

As for the Dubai Ports deal, there was a legitimate security concern with handing over an American port to a company based in a part of the world brimming with anti-American hostility, even though Dubai is an ally. Would we have permitted a firm based in France or Italy, with their large Communist parties, to have operational control over a major port during the Cold War era? Or a Spanish, Swedish, or Argentinian firm, where the neutral regimes had fascist or pro-German leanings, to do so during World War II? The questions raised in this matter were legitimate.

20 posted on 02/08/2007 12:05:06 PM PST by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; erton1; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; ...
.....why the jurors found them guilty...

Three jurors have apparently told reporters that the foreman "told them their verdicts had to be unamimous," and that they were "not allowed to be a hung jury."

Now IF this report is accurate, etc. etc. BTW, a local, highly experienced attorney tells us that scuttlebutt has it that the defense team was "out-lawyered" by the prosecution.

For example, in regard to the infamous, so-called "Subsequent Arrest" of the informant after he received immunity: it "officially" may have never happened. I.E., he was taken into custody, and released; never actually "arrested, or booked," so the prosecution felt they were technically correct in not disclosing this to the defense, and they followed up by successfully obtaining a gag order and the sealing of records.

Your tax dollars at work.

21 posted on 02/08/2007 12:42:22 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (Biden, Biden, he's my man, if anyone says it, he soon can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Twisting in the wind, hanging from their own ptard, the Bush administration withered and died.

Long live global tyranny.


22 posted on 02/08/2007 12:47:22 PM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I heard about it this morning on Glen Beck's show

Those people that lied should be fired immediately for lying to Congress

Also .... is this the dude that is a childhood friend of the drug muggler??

But that finding directly contradicts a Department of Homeland Security memo written March 12, 2005 - less than a month after the Feb. 17, 2005, shooting - by Christopher Sanchez, the original investigating officer for the Homeland Security Inspector General's Office.

23 posted on 02/08/2007 2:22:40 PM PST by Mo1 ( http://www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Well, verdicts do have to be unanimous, and judges to frown on 'hung juries', which I guess could be interpreted by some to be pushing them, but usually all communication by the judge to the jury is vetted past all the lawyers first.

I'm not sure what the rules are about the way foreman manipulate jurors. IN the one case I was a juror, the foreman did a LOT of manipulation, and it took a lot of effort to overcome his bias. I would imagine that a strong person on a jury could sway people pretty easily.

But post-case recantations of jurors are discounted, because once they are tainted with media coverage and possibly inquiries from the defendant lawyers or supports of the defendant, you can't be certain they are still speaking strictly based on the evidence in the case.

Some jurors might be swayed by the absurd sentences for example to be fighting the charge that caused the long sentence (NONE of the reports I've seen about the jurors says whether they were protesting ALL the guilty verdicts, or just one, or a couple -- I'm not saying there isn't a report that does state that, just I haven't seen it).

Or they could actually be threatened, or bribed, to change their position. Or maybe they read other evidence or conjecture that wasn't allowed to be presented because of lack of foundation or because the judge ruled it was not germane. Those would be things to include in the appeal, which I presume is slowly winding it's way up through the system -- or maybe they are focusing on the media blitz.

If you had another 3 jurors who insisted on guilt but corroborated the pressure, that would be the first step to getting the "juror" issue on the front burner. I haven't seen any other jurors agreeing that there was such pressure, but again maybe there was a report and we didn't see it.


24 posted on 02/08/2007 3:06:59 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Good post, a very calm rational look at the process. My compliments.
25 posted on 02/08/2007 3:10:31 PM PST by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

HM was sunk when she couldn't answer legitimate questions. If the reactionaries hadn't blasted her for weeks for random quotes out of context from years earlier, and screamed for senators to deny her a vote based on her lack of a known position on Roe V. Wade, she would have been rejected by the democrats and republicans based on the FACTS, and America wouldn't have gotten the idea that conservatives were simply looking for ideologues.

There was nothing wrong with those arguing against her because of the lack of a paper trail or familiarity with constitutional issues. But there was a lot of other things thrown out their in an attempt to sway the politics without regard to the facts.

It could be the same here. The facts could end up exonerating these two men, but right now it's mostly shrill rhetoric about open borders, pro-drug prosecuters, a corrupt attorney general, and a president who should be impeached. Hardly a conservative way of examining the facts and reaching a rational judgment.

Heard of any nuclear bombs going off at a port recently?


26 posted on 02/08/2007 3:13:52 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
It could be the same here. The facts could end up exonerating these two men, but right now it's mostly shrill rhetoric about open borders, pro-drug prosecuters, a corrupt attorney general, and a president who should be impeached. Hardly a conservative way of examining the facts and reaching a rational judgment.

Where was the conservative examination of the facts, and final judgement BEFORE the arrest of these Border Patrol Agents?

'Guest workers' my azzz...


27 posted on 02/08/2007 3:41:29 PM PST by wizecrakker (Trying to behave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wizecrakker

I've got that image up on my images page. I must have used it in one of my anti-illegal blog diatribes.


28 posted on 02/08/2007 6:27:04 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Well, verdicts do have to be unanimous, and judges to frown on 'hung juries'

Apparently, judge's instructions were fine. The jurors reportedly say they were pressured by the foreman, who wouldn't let them hang and was intimidating. Some question about his connections as well.

Given the controversy now swirling around this case, and the inevitability of appeal, I am wondering why the two BP agents aren't (weren't) released on bail pending appeal.

29 posted on 02/09/2007 12:02:49 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Biden, Biden, he's my man, if anyone says it, he soon can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Also .... is this the dude that is a childhood friend of the drug muggler??

Chris Sanchez was the DHS-OIG investigator in charge of the case.
Rene Sanchez is the BP Agent from Arizona who was the friend of the smuggler.
Both demonstrated questionable behavior throughout this case, IMO.

30 posted on 02/09/2007 12:12:58 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Rene Sanchez's mother knew the mother of the smuggler.


31 posted on 02/09/2007 5:59:39 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

More than that.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781811/posts?page=41#41


32 posted on 02/09/2007 6:03:50 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
I believe from the 5th circuit docket that the agents have petitioned to be released pending the appeal. This was done since the trial court denied their request to be released. If the 5th circuit grants their request, it MAY be some insight as to how they feel about the appeal. This is kind of like reading tea leaves. I am very questioning about the "subsequent arrest." That could be one of their better their better points of error. It depends greatly on the facts developed, the disclosure to the defense and the rulings of the trial judge. I don't have enough information regarding the it to hazard a guess as to the at that aspect of the appeal. I would like to see more information developed on it. I frankly don't think that the error regarding the 3 jurors is going to be reversible error. Given the facts as alleged and posted here, the case law out of the 5th Circuit makes it difficult unless there was an improper instruction given to the jury by the trial court. If the misunderstanding was the result of jury deliberations, as it appears here, then the 5th is unlikely to reverse. Courts see this situation all the time in jury trials. Unfortunately, the weak jurors in this case were in support of the defendants. I could be wrong, but I don't see it being a winner.
33 posted on 02/09/2007 7:10:47 AM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Do you know if the jurors reported to the judge that they were deadlocked?


34 posted on 02/09/2007 7:54:53 AM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: erton1; CharlesWayneCT; calcowgirl
The facts could end up exonerating these two men, but right now it's mostly shrill rhetoric about open borders, pro-drug prosecuters, a corrupt attorney general, and a president who should be impeached. Hardly a conservative way of examining the facts and reaching a rational judgment.

The prosecutor did not foresee the firestorm this case would create. Had these two BP men been traditional criminals, the (perhaps overly) slick lawyering used to nail them would probably have been applauded by the very same people now in various stages of outrage (including me.)

Unfortunately, now Sutton is actually benefitting from the controversy and confusion swirling around the case! He, and the other agencies caught off base by the popular reaction, are rather cagily trying to control and direct the release of information, and disinformation, as much as they can. Evidently, they may have gone too far with it, though, by misdirecting congress.

That, and the original decision to prosecute, of course, are the most disturbing aspects of the whole tawdry affair. Guilty or innocent, these BP Agents should be free pending appeal, which I believe to be a necessary first step in reaching a workable deal.

Maybe the 5th Circuit will see it that way, as erton suggests. However, this ain't no 9th circuit... i.e. they are usually, I hear tell, rather pro-prosecutor.

35 posted on 02/09/2007 8:12:18 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Biden, Biden, he's my man, if anyone says it, he soon can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

I'm surprised the are not out pending appeal, but I don't know how often people are out pending appeal.

I remember Martha Stewart was not out while pending appeal, at the time I think the talking heads said the appeal had little chance so she figured it was better to get the sentence over with than wait a year under a cloud and then have to go to jail.


36 posted on 02/09/2007 8:44:47 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
I agree that the agents should be released pending appeal. Lets hope the 5th sees it that way.
37 posted on 02/09/2007 9:04:57 AM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: erton1; Sue Bob

Well the district court judge isn't cutting Ramos any slack. He filed a pauper motion 3 weeks ago, basically saying that he was broke, his prior attorney's were continuing on a pro-bono basis, and that he didn't even have the funds to pay for the transcript to support an appeal.

Judge Cardone slapped him down and denied it on Wednesday.


38 posted on 02/09/2007 10:02:14 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Wow, did he do anything to PO the judge other than this campaign for the pardon by his supporters. Maybe the judge thinks he has access to funds through his supporters. Have they started a legal defense fund? It may be time to start if one hasn't started yet. I have mentioned this on prior threads.


39 posted on 02/09/2007 10:29:50 AM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: erton1
Do you know if the jurors reported to the judge that they were deadlocked?

Rumor has it, like everything else in this damned case, that the foreman would not permit them to report out. If true, could that be significant at this juncture?

IMHO, probably.

40 posted on 02/09/2007 11:33:28 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (Biden, Biden, he's my man, if anyone says it, he soon can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

It would be helpful if the jurors at some point in the deliberations sent a note to the judge that they were deadlocked. It would even better that the court had to send the jury an instruction that is called a "dynamite charge." Without the above, it will be difficult to prevail on a point of error regarding the '3 JURORS'.IMHO.


41 posted on 02/09/2007 2:37:09 PM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

It would be helpful if the jurors at some point in the deliberations sent a note to the judge that they were deadlocked. It would even better that the court had to send the jury an instruction that is called a "dynamite charge." Without the above, it will be difficult to prevail on a point of error regarding the '3 JURORS'.IMHO. I would like a stronger affidavit then I have seen. It still worth pursuing.


42 posted on 02/09/2007 2:41:09 PM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Bad News Brewing For The Bush Administration
43 posted on 02/10/2007 10:19:25 AM PST by Dr. Marten (Bush Immigration Policy: No Illegal Alien Left Behind! (http://thehorsesmouth.blog-city.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: erton1
Wow, did he do anything to PO the judge other than this campaign for the pardon by his supporters. Maybe the judge thinks he has access to funds through his supporters. Have they started a legal defense fund? It may be time to start if one hasn't started yet. I have mentioned this on prior threads.

I have no idea if Cardone is PO'd and I don't know anything about her. I've pulled most all of the docs available on Pacer, and looked pretty closely at the docket. This judge cut no slack for the defense from day one. Defense motion, motion, motion... deny, deny, deny. Prosecution motion to exclude, motion to seal, motion to in limine.... grant, grant, grant. With so many sealed proceedings and docs, it's hard to tell what the heck is going on.

As to legal defense fund, see below:


Document 216-1

(snip -- headers, etc.)

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Comes now Ignacio Ramos, Jr., by and through his undersigned attorney, and moves this Court to grant this motion and find Defendant to be indigent and allow him to proceed in forma pauperis in this appeal, and would show the Court the following:

I.

Mr. Ramos' financial status is set out in the presentence report which the Court reviewed. His financial condition has not improved since that time. He is without sufficient funds to pay for the transcript in this case or retain counsel for appeal. The undersigned attorney and co-counsel Mr. Peters were retained for purposes of representation in the district court only. At this point in time, counsel remain in the case on a pro bono basis.
II.

At this time, Mr. Ramos is not requesting court-appointed counsel. He is aware that funds have been raised for the purposes of his legal defense. To date, he has not received any funds for legal fees or expenses. However, he understands that he will receive funds to assist with the retention of appellate counsel. It does not appear that there are sufficient funds raised to pay appellate counsel in full or cover expenses.
III.

Mr. Ramos needs to file his transcript order for the purposes of perfecting his appeal. At this time he has no access to any funds raised on his behalf. However, Mr. Ramos expects to receive financial assistance with attorney's fees. In the event that he does not, he will approach the Court again and request the appointment of counsel.
IV.

Counsel has been informed that the United States Attorney has ordered the entire transcript in this case. However, Mr. Ramos does not even have sufficient funds to pay the copy cost for the transcript of all proceedings.

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant this motion, and allow Mr. Ramos to proceed in this appeal in forma pauperis, without payment of costs, including the transcript.

(snip... Signatures, etc. )

44 posted on 02/10/2007 11:38:07 AM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: erton1
Based on the court docket during deliberations, it looks like there was lots of interaction between judge and jury:
Doc #  Filed      Description

140    3/6/2006   Court's Charge/Instructions to Jury
141    3/6/2006   Jury Note (Sealed)
142    3/6/2006   Minutes - Miscellaneous
--     3/6/2006   Minutes - Miscellaneous
143    3/7/2006   Jury Note (Sealed)
--     3/7/2006   Remark (No Doc #)
--     3/7/2006   Remark (No Doc #)
144    3/7/2006   Jury Note (Sealed)
--     3/7/2006   Minutes - Miscellaneous
145    3/7/2006   Jury Note (Sealed)
146    3/7/2006   Minutes - Miscellaneous
147    3/8/2006   Jury Note (Sealed)
148    3/8/2006   Jury Verdict - Compean (Unredacted Jury Verdict sealed)
149    3/8/2006   Jury Verdict - Ramos (Unredacted Jury Verdict sealed)
150    3/8/2006   Minutes - Miscellaneous

45 posted on 02/10/2007 12:02:46 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; Kenny Bunk
It looks like a typical motion of this type. I'm a little surprised that the judge denied it. I have been involved in cases where the judge seems to be be totally against your client and it can be very disheartening. Hopefully the agents and the attorneys don't get too down. If there is a silver lining to the trial judges rulings against the defendants, it is that every ruling, whether on the motions or evidential, can be a ground for reversal on the appeal. Obviously if the judge grants your motion then it not a point for appeal whereas if the judge denies the motion that is one more point of error for the appellate court to consider. I have cases where the trial judge goes so overboard for one side that he creates reversible error for the case. Sometimes one error may not be enough for a reversal of the case but when there are several, the cumulative effect on the appellate judges can be helpful. As I said on another thread, trying to figure out what an appellate court will do is akin to reading tea leaves.
46 posted on 02/10/2007 3:45:42 PM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

Tiajuana Tony...?


47 posted on 02/10/2007 3:47:54 PM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: erton1; Kenny Bunk

Thanks for the info. And thanks for putting KB on the ping--I meant to do that but obviously forgot.

On another note, Ramos appealed to the 5th circuit the judges order denying his request to remain free on bond pending appeal. Any idea how long that process usually takes?


48 posted on 02/10/2007 4:11:03 PM PST by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; Kenny Bunk
I disagree with you as to whether there was "lots of interaction between judge and jury." Although the notes are sealed now, they will be available to the 5th circuit and can unsealed by the 5th. From looking at the docket sheet, I feel confident in following: 1) Doc#141- Jury asking to retire for day; 2) Doc #143-Jury asking for read back of testimony; 3) Doc# 145-Jury asking to retire for day; 4) Doc #147- jury notifying court it has a verdict. The only one I have any doubt about is #143 but it looks like to me that after thinking overnight that some jurors wanted their memories refreshed on testimony they considered important by them. Not unusual. In fact, I have cases where the jury has requested read backs several times during deliberations. The number of jury notes to the judge are actually on the low side considering the length of the trial and 3 days of deliberation. I just finished a case last month on a 1 week jury trial where the jury asked for 6 read backs in 1 1/2 days of deliberation.(they couldn't agree on the testimony) It does not appear to me that the jury notified the judge that it was having difficulty reaching a verdict or that it was deadlocked. It also does not appear that the judge gave the jury an additional charge such as a dynamite charge which would be helpful in the error alleged regarding the 3 jurors. BTW jury notes are normally sealed at this point of the appeal.
49 posted on 02/10/2007 4:20:26 PM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; Kenny Bunk
I hate to hazard a guess. It is unusual for the appellate court reverse the trial court on this type ruling. I think the 5th will want to see the transcript first, or maybe the PSI which should have a factual discussion and recommendations on release pending appeal, such as amount of bond or restrictions on the release like an ankle bracelet. I would guess the time between when the 5th receives the transcript and clerk's record and the time for the appellant's briefs are to be filed with court.
50 posted on 02/10/2007 4:39:31 PM PST by erton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson