Posted on 05/16/2008 9:51:33 AM PDT by kingattax
His testimony was only a small part of the total evidence against them. The physical evidence corroborated his story, and not that of the agents'.
and two agents granted "immunity" who changed their statements numerous times and either resigned or were fired from the Border Patrol for lying. Compean had a written statement he provided at 1:30 AM in the morning and then testified essentially what he had written. Ramos testified and his testimony is the most consonant to all other testimony given.
Sorry, bud. You've got your facts wrong.
If you are going to actually prosecute LEO's in Federal court you are supposed to use the statutes as they were actually written by Congress. Prosecutors do not have the right to rewrite the statutes to suit their personal objectives. The Courts have ruled that is a no-no.
The fact that Sutton personally rewrote the statutes is bona fide proof that he understood that this wasn't a strong case from the get go. He knew he could fully exploit Judge Cardone's inexperience as a Judge in Criminal Court.
The bottom line, as Brewer correctly points out,
Having misstated the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A), Counts Four and Five failed to charge either Defendant with any criminal offense whatsoever.
No go back and actually read the brief.
The brief showed that they didn't fire their weapons and destroy evidence? Maybe you can tell me which page of the brief that was on, because I didn't see that.
Having misstated the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(c)(1)(A), Counts Four and Five
I didn't realize they were only convicted of counts four and five.
These two wounded a drug dealer and they are doing hard isolated time just as if they had killed that scum.
Bush won't pardon them because Ramos and Compeon are political prisoners who serve as examples to what happens when Border Patrolmen use anything but their voice to stop illegals.
I'm disgusted with Bush.
As far as Aldrete Davila is concerned, he has proven that he simply cannot be trusted. At this point he is probably the only person who still insists he was "unarmed". Even Sutton himself probably now has doubts regarding Osvaldo's story. If Johnny had to do it over again there's now way in hell he would have actually given the smuggler an immunity agreement. No way.
Of course not. But what has that got to do with whether Ramos and Compean are guilty?
These two wounded a drug dealer and they are doing hard isolated time just as if they had killed that scum.
No, they'd be doing a lot more time if they had killed him. (BTW, I agree the sentence is excessive).
Bush won't pardon them because Ramos and Compeon are political prisoners who serve as examples to what happens when Border Patrolmen use anything but their voice to stop illegals.
I see it's time to get out the tinfoil hat.
I'm disgusted with Bush.
So am I, but there are more productive ways to vent your disgust.
Nice strawman argument. The agents never claimed that they didn't fire their guns. You and I both know that. Those were the counts (4 & 5) that carried the "mandatory" prison sentences. Failing to report the discharge of a firearm is something that can be handled in an administrative approach, through suspension or termination from the job.
Most attorney's are yahoos in my experience.
Sorry, but a law degree doesn't impress me much.
And he knows far more about the law than you do.
Yes, but there are many attorneys who know the law at least as well as he does who disagree with him.
Go back and actually read his brief.
I have better things to do with my time.
As he shows, Sutton re-wrote the statutes to facilitate the indictment and prosecution of the agents.
Le me get this straight. You're claming that Congress called a special session when they heard about the case, and they invited Sutton in to re-write the statute, which they then proceded to rubber-stamp, just to railroad two BP guys they never heard of. Is that right?
As Brewer points out, the Courts have ruled that prosecutors cannot do that.
If they did, it would be one hell of a silly ruling, seeing as how Congress always has and always will write statutes.
For starters, the instructions to the Jury were in error, because the statutes in question were in error or deliberately misstated.
How can a statute be "in error?" Congress can pass whatever statute it wants. If you have an issue with the jury instructions, well then your beef is with the judge, not the prosecutor.
As far as Aldrete Davila is concerned, he has proven that he simply cannot be trusted.
That's why the prosecution relied on corroborating evidence.
At this point he is probably the only person who still insists he was "unarmed".
All the evidence suggests he wasn't. The behavior of Compean and Ramos suggests he wasn't.
Answer me this: if this was such a clean shoot, why did Compean and Ramos destroy evidence and lie about it to their supervisor?
Care to back that up with some evidence? About the only physical evidence at the trial was Aldrete-Davila's hiney. And show me where my "facts" are wrong.
You can read Compean's statement here ---http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/OIG_foia_RamosCompean.pdf
And you can read the testimony here --- http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/
So they were found guilty of other counts?
Failing to report the discharge of a firearm is something that can be handled in an administrative approach, through suspension or termination from the job.
What about destroying evidence? Is that okey dokey?
What about the physical evidence of the shell casings? Oh, right, never mind......
Describe the evidence that Ramos destroyed. And list the lies to their supervisor. Back it up with testimony.
Compean never denied picking up casings and throwing them into the ditch. Ramos didn't touch a thing. It wasn't "evidence" until Sutton decided it was. The van was "evidence", it was moved. The shotgun was "evidence", it was moved. The dirt all over Compean was "evidence", it was moved. The slight injuries sustained by Compean were cleaned by him, those were "evidence". The cell phone in the van was "evidence" and should have been damn good evidence, but the state did not provide it. etc.
Doesn't sound like something he'd have been trained to do. Why would he do it?
It wasn't "evidence" until Sutton decided it was.
So it was okay to destroy evidence? Is that your claim?
Have you ever shot on a firing range?
Don't be silly. Unknowingly changing things may be destroying evidence, but those things may not be evidence until they are involved in a legal process.
He forgot where he was?
Unknowingly changing things may be destroying evidence, but those things may not be evidence until they are involved in a legal process.
Destroy the evidence, quick, before the shooting becomes part of a legal process? Is that part of his training? I wonder, if every police force in the country used that philosophy would that be fine with you?
We're not talking about lawyers you've dealt with, we are talking about J. Mark Brewer. Avoiding the issue. Sorry, but a law degree doesn't impress me much.
As opposed to legal minds with no law degree....?
Yes, but there are many attorneys who know the law at least as well as he does who disagree with him.
Oh really...?? Show me one of these "attorneys" who actually refutes his specific arguments regarding Sutton's changing or rewording the statutes to facilitate indictment and prosecution. I want one actual name. Please provide it. And show me were I can view their counter-arguments to Brewers points. You CAN'T.
I have better things to do with my time.
Translation : You simply don't want to read his brief. So you don't even know what you are talking about. And you still expect to have any credibility...??
Le me get this straight. You're claming that Congress called a special session when they heard about the case, and they invited Sutton in to re-write the statute, which they then proceded to rubber-stamp, just to railroad two BP guys they never heard of. Is that right?
Where in the HELL did I eve say that....??? You are simply showcasing your complete ignorance of the case.
What Sutton did was to change the wording of the statute. He combined wording from the original statute with wording from the sentencing guidelines to create a altered version of the original. This is done by the prosecutor to make it easier to indict and convict in court. If you had bothered to read the brief you would have least understood this. Period.
In addition, Brewer points out that Sutton isn't the first prosecutor to pull this kind of stunt. There have been others. And the Appellete Courts have ruled that a prosecutor cannot actually modify the statutes in that fashion. That has to be done by Congress.
Congress had nothing to do with Sutton's legal malfeasance. If you had actually read the brief you would know this. Sutton realized that he could fully exploit Cardone's inexperience as a Federal Judge and he did just that.
If they did, it would be one hell of a silly ruling, seeing as how Congress always has and always will write statutes.
This was all Johnny's doing, not Congress'. Wake up.
How can a statute be "in error?" Congress can pass whatever statute it wants. If you have an issue with the jury instructions, well then your beef is with the judge, not the prosecutor.
Making a complete ass out of yourself. It was Sutton who changed the wording of the statute, NOT Congress. And he really wasn't supposed to do that.
All the evidence suggests he wasn't. The behavior of Compean and Ramos suggests he wasn't. Answer me this: if this was such a clean shoot, why did Compean and Ramos destroy evidence and lie about it to their supervisor?
Where did they actually destroy evidence...? Tossing shell casings on the ground...?? Ramos testified that he heard the other agents talking about gunshots as they were walking back up the ravine. I believe him. Ten .40 caliber rounds makes an awful lot of noise. My guess is that the other agents were talking about gun shots when the FOS arrived. Thus he assumed they already knew about it. I believe that they did. Later on, some of the other agents would change their stories.
These men remain isolated in their cells, since it's too dangerous for them to integrate in the general prison population. I agree the punishment is "excessive".
Bush has been approached, picketed and petitioned regarding these men. They are not a danger to society, have served time and at the least, should be released under house arrest.
What other "productive" approach do you suggest we take, before we vent our disgust?
sw
Don't you think?
Ramos testified that he heard the other agents talking about gunshots as they were walking back up the ravine. I believe him.
When he heard other agents talking about shots, did he say, "We fired them and tossed the shell casings into a ditch"? Why not?
Great thread, everyone. Reminds me of the good-old days of FR.
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.