no, I mean what was the evidence that convicted them...based upon what I have read, there was nothing to convict there...what part of the evidence has not been posted or mentioned? Ya don't convict someone of a crime unless there is evidence of that crime. I would like to know what the jury heard that made them return a guilty verdict.
The two agents pursued Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, whose van was later found to contain nearly 800 pounds of marijuana. After Aldrete-Davila left his van and struggled with Compean, both agents shot at him as he fled but thought they had missed him, and he crossed the river back into Mexico. One of Ramos' bullets had hit Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks, it turned out.
A jury convicted Ramos and Compean in March of serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, obstruction of justice, and a civil rights violation. They are scheduled to be sentenced Aug. 22.
Aldrete-Davila, who was given immunity by the U.S. government to testify against the agents, is now suing the Border Patrol for $5 million for alleged civil rights violations.
So the drug smuggler somehow turned out to be the golden boy in this whole thing, with immunity from smuggling charges and a chance at $5 million in U.S. taxpayer money. The two Border Patrol agents are looking at hard time.
We don't presume to question jury convictions. But there are a lot of things not to like about this whole case and the way it developed.
It makes us uncomfortable that a Department of Homeland Security investigator tracked down Aldrete-Davila in Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the two agents. We understand the need for the department to police the actions of its own employees, but somehow we liked to think that Homeland Security personnel were actually securing the homeland – not out making deals with foreign smugglers.
I too think there is more to this story, but I can't find anything on it except the rah-rah stuff. Truth or Fiction mentions it a little in the link below.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/border-agents.htm
They shot him in the back, which is illegal; they are only allowed to shoot if their lives are in danger. What really bhurt them in front of the jury, though, was the coverup: they lied on their reports, and said they never fired their guns; and then they went back to pick up their shell casings, in order to hide any evidence of what they had done.
Shooting him in the back could have been explained-- they could have said he suddenly turned, or something like that-- but the lies and the coverup are evidence that they knew they had done something illegal.