Oh, please.
Appeals courts rarely give reasons for why they will not review cases. That's not normal practice.
They almost never give reasons when its as econd appeal after the first appeal was rejected.
These two are guilty, period.
The more immigration reform advocates cling to these two losers, the more unhinged and less focused they become.
finally, someone with common sense on one of these threads....those two belong in jail
Guilty of what? Trying to guard the border? Trusting their supervisor to file the correct report? Of not letting an international felon escape?
Which side are you on here? You haven't turned ACLU/La Raza moonbat on us have you?
The more immigration reform advocates cling to these two losers, the more unhinged and less focused they become. “
Do you have no sympathy for them? I actually agree that they screwed up. I think it is really unfortunate that they got charged under that stupid firearms statue with the ten year mandatory minimum though. I do not think this is the type of conduct Congress intended to punish when they wrote that vague statute, and I think the prosecutors were jerks for even filing under it. This is all typical though. Prosecutors heap on the charges, stretch the laws as far as possible to add more charges, and then punish people who do not shut up and plead. I bet these two could have pled out on misdemeanor charges.
Yep, guilty of protecting you. (if you are an American)
The more immigration reform advocates cling to these two losers, the more unhinged and less focused they become.
You've got it completely backwards as usual. We don't advocate reform. We advocate enforcing the law vis-a-vis immigration.
“These two are guilty, period.”
So in your mind Aldrete-Davilla was unarmed when he was shot. And we know this solely upon Aldrete-Davilla’s testimony.
Or do you have some other explanation of how you know that he didn’t have a gun, as Ramos and Compean claimed?
Yes they do and the Circuit Court of Appeals did review the case and issued a written opinion addressing the facts and the law.
They almost never give reasons when its as second appeal after the first appeal was rejected.
This is true for motions to reconsider.
My major concern was the prosecution withheld information that was beneficial to the defendants under Brady v. Maryland and on that basis alone, would have ordered a new trial.