Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate to interrogate border agents' prosecutor[U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton](Ramos-Compean)
The Washington Times ^ | 17 July 2007 | Jerry Seper

Posted on 07/17/2007 5:37:55 AM PDT by BGHater

A Senate hearing today into the convictions of two U.S. Border Patrol agents who shot a fleeing drug-smuggling suspect is expected to spark heated debate as the U.S. attorney who brought the charges defends the prosecutions.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton will tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that a jury in Texas heard all the evidence against agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in their shooting of Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila and ruled it was not justified.

"This case is not about illegal immigration but the rule of law," said Mr. Sutton. "After a 2½-week jury trial, these former agents were convicted of shooting at and seriously wounding an unarmed, fleeing suspect who posed no threat to them."

Another witness, T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Counsel (NBPC) who has angrily denounced the prosecution, will challenge the government's case, saying there were only three witnesses to the incident and prosecutors believed Mr. Aldrete-Davila over the two agents.

"The only way to conclude that Agents Ramos and Compean should have been prosecuted is if the word of the known drug smuggler is given more credence than the sworn statements of two law-enforcement officers," said Mr. Bonner, whose union represents all 11,000 of the agency's nonsupervisory personnel.

The committee also will hear from Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar, Border Patrol Deputy Chief Luis Barker and Ramos' appellate counsel, David L. Botsford.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security, first raised questions about the prosecutions in February. Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, has ruled she will preside over the hearing.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: aliens; borderagents; compean; immigrantlist; ramos; senate; sutton; suttonsucks; traitorsutton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 next last
To: jude24; kabar; xzins; blue-duncan; P-Marlowe

Are you a lawyer? You seem to have an inordinate amount of faith in the Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys.

Here’s something for you to read to introduce a bit of reality in your life:

Read that and tell me you can trust the Department of Justice to not get convictions of people they know are innocent.

81 posted on 07/17/2007 7:09:17 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I would never believe that someone smuggling 743 lbs. of dope is unarmed. I person would have to be high on drugs to believe that.

82 posted on 07/17/2007 7:14:33 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BGHater

Another Senate dog and pony show. Do the Senate Democrats intend to please the Latino illegals, and the government of Mexico?

83 posted on 07/17/2007 7:16:39 AM PDT by popdonnelly (Our first responsibility is to keep the power of the Presidency out of the hands of the Clintons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
BTW juries are composed of people who are generally too stupid to find an excuse or reason to get out of jury duty. And many jurors lie about whether or not they have prejudged a case just so that they can sit on a jury, especially in a high profile case, since there is the chance to hit the lottery with a book de

Climbing up on my soap box

Your post is troubling. Have you ever been on a jury? I have. Multiple times. Each time I'm called, I have found a way to serve. I am not stupid. The people on the juries were not stupid. Yeah there is always a "free him" and a "hang him" on each one. Both sides see to this. This is good IMO though because the scale seems to balance in the middle. Instead of beating up the "uneducated" how about more of the "smart" people stop trying to get out of their duty and serving their country. Anyone who has ever made an excuse, that's what it was because we all find the time and a way to do what we want.

stepping down now:')

84 posted on 07/17/2007 7:22:14 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“They committed a crime, and tried to cover it up, lied, and then refused a deal.”

Refused a deal? You mean, because these border agents had the audacity to believe they were innocent as justifies their sentence?

85 posted on 07/17/2007 7:29:23 AM PDT by guido911 (Islamic terrorists are members of the "ROP", the "religion of pu*&ies")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; kabar; blue-duncan

No one should spend years in prison on technicalities.

That is all this sounds like to me. These guys were officers of the law, so they were allowed to have weapons and were allowed to discharge them.

All the remainder sounds like technicalities surrounding a legitimate incident.

Warnings, probations, yada, yada....OK

But PRISON! Gimmeabreak!

86 posted on 07/17/2007 7:32:23 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

Well said..... and if we have a major problem it lies with those who choose to find excuses to get off juries and uphold their duty to their country, state and local gov’ts. My experience has been much like yours.

87 posted on 07/17/2007 7:34:46 AM PDT by deport ( Cue Spooky Music...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper
It's being broadcast on the web live. Go to and then click on the "Live Webcast" link on the right side.
88 posted on 07/17/2007 7:54:11 AM PDT by justanotherfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper

I’ll let you know if I see it!

89 posted on 07/17/2007 8:04:09 AM PDT by Guenevere (Duncan Hunter for President 2008!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg; xzins; jude24
Each time I'm called, I have found a way to serve.

Each time I am called I simply tell the truth and I am excused. I admit my prejudices and either one side or the other will ask that I be excused. If all else fails, I will simply ask the judge if it would be lawful for a jury who thinks a law is stupid to aquit a defendant even though the evidence suggests that he or she actually committed the crime.

Personally I believe in the principle of jury nullification. Jury nullification is the last check on a tyrannical government short of open rebellion. If I express that opinion in open court, there is little chance I will be sitting on any jury.

Now, in this particular case I would have voted to aquit based solely on my belief that fleeing felons should be shot. If that were still the law, we would not have so many instances of law enforcement officers and innocent bystanders being killed by fleeing felons. "Stop or I'll shoot" should be the last words that a lot of these scumbags like Davila should hear.

90 posted on 07/17/2007 8:17:23 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: justanotherfreeper; Guenevere

Thank you!

91 posted on 07/17/2007 8:26:52 AM PDT by truthkeeper (It's the borders, stupid./LOUD and PROUD!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: normy
I can’t believe the major GOP players are too blind to see this.

It really makes you wonder where the GOP's allegiance lies. Oh, wait, they have already shown us by their shameful pursuit of shamnesty and by the way they insulted us in the process.

92 posted on 07/17/2007 8:32:52 AM PDT by Heartland Mom (Build the fence, secure our borders, deport illegals - Protect our sovereignty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper

Wow, Feinstein is calling this creep out. Good for her.

93 posted on 07/17/2007 9:09:28 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

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


94 posted on 07/17/2007 9:32:45 AM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

who is she calling out? Sutton?

95 posted on 07/17/2007 9:55:33 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (Famously frisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Yeah and my husband says he can just look at the guy and tell if he’s guilty or not. You both are just trying to get out of it. I believe jury nullification has its place too but just answer the questions. If one side doesn’t want you the other may fight for you. They only get so many cross outs (I think). Get on the jury and be “smart”. What’s the worse that can happen? Some bleeding heart running to the judge and they excuse you?
96 posted on 07/17/2007 10:01:52 AM PDT by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: TexasCajun
The trial was held in El Paso, which can barely be considered America. It is far closer to a city in Mexico. I doubt that anyone who supports border enforcement can get a fair trial in El Paso.
97 posted on 07/17/2007 10:30:22 AM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kabar
They picked up the spent shells and tried to cover up what happened. That was their mistake, not the shooting itself.

But Ramos did neither of those things. Only Compean.
98 posted on 07/17/2007 10:32:15 AM PDT by Iwo Jima ("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: justanotherfreeper

WOW, read T.J. Bonner’s testimony he really nails it.

99 posted on 07/17/2007 10:42:58 AM PDT by usurper (Spelling or grammatical errors in this post can be attributed to the LA City School System)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT; xzins; jude24
Cornyn hit the nail on the head when he asked the obvious question "Why shouldn't the border patrol be allowed to shoot a fleeing felon?" Sutton blamed the Supreme Court.

It was also quite telling that Feinstein and Cornyn both criticized Sutton for granting total immunity to the drug smuggler in exchange for his perjured testimony that he wasn't carrying a weapon. The jury was also prevented from knowing the fact that the conviction carried a minimum 10 year prison term and Feinstein was quite clear in her assessment that the offense which carried the minimum 10 year prison term was clearly not intended to apply to a case where the discharge of the firearm was the violent act for which the additional penalty of discharging a firearm in the commission of a felony was attached. There has to be an underlying felony and in this case there wasn't. In other words it is clear that these guys were railroaded by a zealous prosecutor who had no concern for justice. Feinstein made it clear that the statute was intended to apply to guys like Davila and not to border patrol agents who may have overstepped their authority.

Today I was happy to see that my Senator was Feinstein. She has moments of lucidity. Today was one of those moments.

100 posted on 07/17/2007 11:49:11 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-103 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
Topics · Post Article

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