Patterico's Pontifications

2/8/2007

More on the Border Patrol Shooting Case

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:00 am



I heard Hugh Hewitt on the radio yesterday, discussing the Texas Border Patrol Agents case with Erwin Chemerinsky and John Eastman. The three of them disagreed on very little, and I agreed with almost everything that all three of them had to say. Here are the basics — and I’m going from memory here:

First, until we have a chance to review the trial transcript, we’re all speculating about what the facts shown at trial truly were.

Second, there is nothing particularly suspicious about the fact that the trial transcript has not yet been produced.

Third, these inmates deserve to be properly segregated in prison, and if one of them was beaten because he was not properly segregated, then that is a tragedy and those responsible should be punished.

Fourth, if the Department of Homeland Security lied to Congress about certain facts associated with the case, then that is unacceptable, and there should be severe consequences for those responsible, up to and including criminal sanctions if appropriate.

Here are the latest developments as I understand them.

Here’s one story:

The Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday apologetically retracted staff members’ comments that two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler had told investigators they intended “to shoot Mexicans.”

I don’t remember ever relying on these assertions, and I don’t think they were presented at the trial, so I’m not sure what relevance they have to the criminal case. But it certainly makes Homeland Security look like idiots at a minimum, and possibly something worse.

I’m more disturbed by this (h/t Darleen):

Two convicted former El Paso Border Patrol agents accused by the U.S. Attorney of not filing a report when they shot a Mexican drug smuggler were prohibited by their own agency’s firearms policy from doing so, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.

. . . .

The agents were convicted partly due to the government’s successful argument at trial that the two men failed to file a report about the shooting.

But U.S. Border Patrol firearms policy specifically states that agents are prohibited from filing a report if a shooting incident takes place and that only an oral report to supervisors is required.

“Ensure that supervisory personnel or INS investigating officers 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.

This would appear to strongly undercut the part of the U.S. Attorney’s position I found most compelling: the argument that these guys tried to cover up the shooting — an odd behavior if they didn’t do anything wrong.

But maybe, just maybe, they didn’t try to cover up anything.

I know that I’m not jumping to conclusions quickly enough for some of you. If you don’t like it, that’s too bad for you.

But I will admit to being disturbed by the emerging facts, and I’ll keep a close eye on the situation. For the sensible among you, that should be enough. Hopefully you appreciate the fact that I’m covering developments that conflict with my original (though qualified) instinct.

As for the rest of you, who require knee-jerk reactions without facts, may I suggest talk radio, or about a million other sites on the Web.

86 Responses to “More on the Border Patrol Shooting Case”

  1. I’m satisfied with your summary. The trial transcript is the main thing and I agree that transcription is often delayed, although I am interested in whether this trial was electronically recorded.

    My goal in commenting on this story has never been to persuade you that these agents are not guilty. I don’t know if they are and I’m sure I couldn’t persuade you of that anyway. However, the US Attorney’s actions and statements in this case have been uncharacteristic, and that it makes me think there may be more to this story.

    DRJ (605076)

  2. Patterico On The Border Patrol Agents’ Case…

    A prosecutor who urges the obviously necessary caution in judging the case –what a concept!…

    Hugh Hewitt (b5f39f)

  3. I agree that one needs to review the trial transcript or a fair summary of it before coming to a conclusion about the agents’ guilt/innocence. With that caveat & were there no further developments or revelations about this case, I would say that the agents were probably guilty:

    (1) In my experience jurors in general & those who sit in federal court in particular, have strong pro-cop biases. Example: Rodney King & the state court criminal trial. That & the unsympathetic nature of the victim (Mexican drug smuggler) suggest that the prosecution’s evidence had to be particularly strong to overcome the jurors’ biases;

    (2) Like jurors, prosecutors also have the pro-cop biases, & then some. I’m come across many a case where the police conduct, as shown by the hard forensic evidence, warranted a criminal prosecution of the officers. The usual result, however, is that the relevant prosecutorial office will take no action against the officers. Instead, it is more likely that the prosecuting authority will pursue criminal cases against the officers’ victims that serve mainly to coverup the officers’ misconduct.

    Again, I’m writing based on general tendencies I’ve seen for this type of case; so its possible that this particular criminal prosecution was an exception, i.e., the agents were wrongly convicted because of unacceptable biases/prejudices against them, and/or wrongful exclusion of exculpatory evidence (& that purported policy of mandating only an oral report for a shooting is the type of evidence that, if true, should weigh heavily in the agents’ favor).

    DWC (b6a402)

  4. At this point what I find appalling is that Skinner’s staff directly lied to several Congress members in order to misdirect them. And it wasn’t just on one point, but several, deliberately made to cast the border agents as “bad, rogue” agents.

    The staff insisted that these TWO agents had admitted in investigative reports several self-damning things (including the so-called ‘we wanted to shoot some Mexicans’… an on-the-face strange statement FROM a couple of Mexican-Americans). Not only did it take FOUR MONTHS plus being put under oath for an admission that these so-called investigative reports never existed, but we also now know only ONE of the agents ever spoke to the investigators, not BOTH as the staff had insisted.

    There is no reason for such blatant lying if this whole prosecution was on the up-and-up.

    Darleen (543cb7)

  5. An April 5, 2005 investigative memo confirms that supervisors were at the scene and that they knew about the discharge of the weapons. This new report leaves that out.

    Note that it was written in Nov. 2006 after the furor arose. It was written by one of the agents accused of lying to the congressmen. Here is further confirmation by Sara A. Carter.

    I only see value in the attachments which were investigative memos written during the investigation.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  6. It seems to me that these two guys deserve a new trial – without lies and misdirection. Protecting the bad guy to convict the ‘good’ or ‘not so bad’ guys is wrong. If they are retried and still convicted so be it – If they are not convicted then they were wrongly accused and should be able to return to a normal life.

    RAS

    Ray Simpson (ffddf3)

  7. What’s your evidence that there were lies in the trial?

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  8. Hugh,
    Normally enjoy your comments on just about anything. Yesterday, however, you came across as arrogant and smug. Discussing the Border Patrol incident with one guest, you actually said, “I’m a lawyer and I know better.” Yikes! Because you are a lawyer, you know better? Please! Nifong, H. Clinton, Edwards, etc., all lawyers. Like the company? I happen to believe the Border Patrol Agents, broke the law and did deserve some punishment. I do not believe this because I have an MBA and know more than others.
    But I digress. Then, you asked the next couple of guests, “Are you a lawyer?” Is it now a prerequisite for listeners and callers to your show to have a law degree? It is, I imagine, a short walk from interesting and bright to Al Franken. Perhaps, a journey you should delay.
    David Fox

    David Fox (9f2541)

  9. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., agreed Wednesday to allow Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to hold a hearing on the case, as she requested.

    “I strongly believe that the sentences in this case are too extreme, given the criminal nature of the defendant and his possession of large quantities of drugs,” Feinstein said in a statement. “These men were given sentences that some individuals who are convicted of murder wouldn’t receive.”
    Report: Agents in Border Shooting Lied

    Does someone familiar with the process know why it would take so long to get a transcript? These trials are supposed to be open to the public, for good reason.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  10. I looked at the docket sheet and from what I could tell, the full transcript was ordered in November.

    I don’t know that a delay from November to now is inordinately long. I suppose that Congressmen could have ordered the transcript before 11/2006–but there is no indication of that on the docket sheet.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  11. Considering all the controle the drug lords have south of the border has anyone considered the possibility of corruption. We could have two bad agents on the take or even worse a bad prosecutor being used to send a message to police not to interfere with drug running.

    southdakotaboy (c2a982)

  12. I read awhile back that one of the convicted agents was aquainted with the drug dealer.

    I would like to know more about that relationship.

    rab (826dc7)

  13. “We wanted to shoot some Mexicans”

    That wasn’t merely “a lie”. It is to this case what the feces painted racial slurs on Tawana Brawley were to that case.

    It’s hard to imagine a few underlings huddling together to fabricate and present this false evidence to a jury of congressmen. I suspect there will be some “untraceable memo” from above from which it will be claimed these underlings learned of this accusation.

    What’s your evidence that there were lies in the trial?
    Comment by Patterico

    If nothing else, yesterday’s revelations put the ball in the prosecution’s court, to prove there weren’t any lies and that this wasn’t a malicious prosectution.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  14. I am a lawyer, all I do is criminal appeals. I have done hundreds of them. Especially in a lengthy trial, transcripts are almost never prepared by the first due date. Court reporters require many extensions to get them filed in the appellate court. I’ve had to wait over a year sometimes for the transcripts. Really, it’s nothing unusual at all. The appellate process is tediously slow, starting with preparing the transcripts.

    Joan Bob (d1db23)

  15. I really loathe this ‘long transcript is the norm” argument. If the SCOTUS can have its transcripts available on same day, a Federal court can have them available in less than 3 months. There really is no rational reason behind such a delay. One could guess that the delay benefits the Prosecution because the facts of the case are not in the public domain and thus not available for scrutiny and the Prosecution is then able to get away with saying whatever they want.

    So far on its face, the Govt. has led a pretty vicious attack on these two agents. Murders have gotten lighter sentences, as have child molestors, rapists, arsonists, and a whole host of other far more serious crimes.

    One more negative for the Prosecution is the lack of full disclosure of the border patrols own rules for reporting. One would question the defense team with why they didn’t bring this to light during the trial, perhaps they did. Of course, we won’t know till the transcripts are available.

    Gabriel (6d7447)

  16. have come to the conclusion that radio talk show hosts should not discuss a subject that they have not personally investigated!
    Bill O’Reilly is famous for shooting off his mouth before all the facts are known! Though he does apologize when found to be wrong.

    Hugh, I wished you’d have Andy Ramirez Chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol on your program.
    http://www.friendsoftheborderpatrol.com/pdf/Ramirez_Judiciary_081706.pdf

    There is one Border Patrol agent that should be investigated, Agent Rene Sanchez! Andy Ramirez has done an excellent job reporting what has really gone on in this case.
    I hope you take the time to read his report.
    World Net Daily has also investigated this injustice!

    I believe the prosecutor is covering his but! Documents that he has sealed should be released.

    Thank God for Congressmen Rorbacher Hunter Duncon and others that are demanding these two Border Patrol agents be released until they either get a pardon or a new trial.

    I love President Bush. I pray for him every day. Right now I am furious with him. I have let him know that I don’t want him to listen to Attorney General Gonzalas or any one else. I want him to demand all sealed documents be released and he receive them and the court transcripts and reads then himself!

    Congressman Rorbacher said this morning if one of these agents is murdered because President Bush didn’t protect then he will call for Impeachment!

    Thank you for taking time on your show for this terrible injustice. Please get ALL the facts first!

    Sincerely,
    Bernie Meyer
    Renton, WA 98059
    BMeyer839802@AOL.com

    Bernie Meyer (ee9fe2)

  17. I’m not big on “conspiracy theories” nor am I a big fan of WND, but Jerome Corsi (who I’ll admit can be fringe) reported this yesterday, and its amazing that Skinner isn’t fired or the people responsible for these outright lies are not held accountable.:

    DHS Inspector General’s office asserted it had documentary evidence Ramos and Compean:

    1. confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;

    2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;

    3. stated that day they “wanted to shoot a Mexican”;

    4. were belligerent to investigators;

    5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

    Under questioning by Culberson, Skinner admitted DHS did not in fact have investigative reports to back up the claims: “The person who told you that misinformed you,” Skinner reportedly replied.

    How can anyone defend this? And given that this was the IG’s office perpetrating such a horrid abuse, how much faith can we have in a fair and impartial prosecution of these two men? Is it possible that some of this information could have been brought out in trial and the IG not have documentation to back it up? I highly doubt it.

    Gabriel (6d7447)

  18. Rab-

    Ramos and Compean were not associated with the drug dealer (Aldrete). One of the agents who testified against them is a semi-distant relative of the drug runner. The case came up because Aldrete’s mother told the other agent’s mother that he was shot.

    RCJP (7e1ac4)

  19. I happened to be in my car yesterday and the guy who had just come out of the hearing featurning Congressman Culbertson testifying what went down while Secretary (Skinner) testified under oath. The reporter said the the entire series of accusations were false. 1. That at least six Border Patrol officers present at the scene picked up the spent shells, there was no attempt to cover up. 2. that no written reports are necessary, that their superiors would have to order one in order for there to be one. Only an oral report is required and both men gave their superiors oral reports 3. “Richard Skinner admitted yesterday under oath that his top deputies gave members of Congress false information, painting Border Patrol agents as rogue cops who were not in fear for their lives and who were ‘out to shoot Mexicans,'” Congressman Culberson said in a statement.

    The summation of the “lies” told by Homeland Insecurity:
    1. confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;
    2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;
    3. stated that day they “wanted to shoot a Mexican”;
    4. were belligerent to investigators;
    5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

    While this may have happened there are no documents whatsoever to back this up, something Sutton originally claimed there were.

    Added extra: the government released a completely different version of the hearing, one which was carried in most papers, that claimed the hearing proved the guilt of the Agents. This entire thing stinks, and the KFI report stated that at least one Republican congressman at the hearing said “I’m no longer a Republican.” When pressed about resigning from the party right now, the guy sort of backed down.

    Duke (4ba8d4)

  20. Hugh Hewitt is a shameless whore for the Bush/Wall Street Journal wing of the G.O.P. This is the same guy who predicted that Bush would take California the day of the 2000 election (um, right Hugh, we had to eek out Florida by our finger nails). It is his kind of GOP Kool-Aid drinking that cost us the 2006 election.

    If Dana Rhorbacher is inclined to use the word “impeachment” on the House floor with regard to this case, something is definitely out of whack with reality.

    There are enough questions here that these men should be, at most, placed under house arrest until appeals can be handled. What if it takes the court a decade to come up with a transcript? Are they supposed to serve out their sentence until someone says “ooops?”

    RCJP (7e1ac4)

  21. David Fox –

    If you look at many of Hugh Hewitt’s arguments (Constitutional debates, Supreme Court picks, etc.), he unfortunately OFTEN resorts to the “I’m a lawyer and I know better” argument as a way of avoiding real challenges. It is very unbecoming of him and one of the reasons why I no longer take him seriously.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  22. Justin:

    It’s more than just the “I’m a Lawyer” crap, it’s the smarmy smug condescension that oozes from his “superior intellect” that chaps my hide, and the hypocrisy of him blasting Democrat “elitists” when he himself comes off in many instances as a smug elitists intellectual type.

    Hugh has long been a fan of the open borders/amnesty position, and has paid lip service to the enforcement first side of the GOP. With Hugh it’s the party can do no wrong on most issues, and while he may occasionally call the GOP on some of its stupid crap, he will almost certainly be in their corner if simply called upon to do so. Note the cozy relationship he has with some of the most partisan hacks on the hill (cough David Drier)

    Gabriel (6d7447)

  23. Thanks for your response about the agents. This is a horror story. They did nothing wrong. It is the prosecution, Johnny Sutton and his lead prosecutor Debra Kanoff that are the crooks. They handed out immunity all over the place and induced other agents to lie and Supervisors to deny that they were informed of the shooting. The bullet was mishandled by an agent of Home Security.It was the same agent who introduced Davilla and a lifelong friend, a border agent from Wilson AZ to the prosecutors. The bullet was processed at the laboratory of the Texas Dept of Public Safety, a dramatic departure from procedure(it always goes to the FBI in a federal investigation.. The bullet could have been fired by any one of 5 brands of pistols, one of which was Ramos weapon. We’re not even sure that Davilla (the smuggler) was shot on the border that day. Davilla kept smuggling(he was given a border pass by Kanoff); that would have invalidated the trial except those records in the Sheriff’s department disappeared. This thing stinks. I’ll get off my soap box. I hope that you signed the petition on grassfire.org.

    Barry Goldsmith (ee9fe2)

  24. While I agree with your summary, I am disturbed by the reported Border patrol shooting report policy itself.

    The only reasons I can think of to bar written shooting reports would be ass-covering ones. Either the Patrol wants no immutable record to protect its officers, or it wants no written record to protect itself from lawsuits.

    Either is unacceptable.

    Anyone have a better justification for barring written records in just those cases where you would probably most want them?

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  25. Patterico

    I am not a lawyer, but, from my perspective it sounds like someone is bending the truth. We hear testimony before congress that lies were presented as gospel by the prosecution. I am not suggesting letting them go. I am suggesting that enough question exists to warrant a complete review. If the guards were convicted unfairly – give them a chance to prove it.

    Ray

    [I think you’re making an unwarranted assumption: that the testimony to Congress has anything to do with the evidence presented in court. — P]

    Ray Simpson (ffddf3)

  26. David Fox –

    Past evidence of Hewitt’s legal elitism here:
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTY2N2RkZmUzZWJkODczNmRiZjZlZGM0MTRjOGY2NzY=

    I’ll see if I can dig up further examples. I know they exist.

    Justin Levine (20f2b5)

  27. Having been called to jury duty seven times, empaneled 5 times and rendered a verdict 4 times, I have an idea of what goes on in a deliberation room. Everyone who is a citizen should serve at least once in their lives.

    The questions I still have are what was the make up of the jury? Trust me, a jury comprised of people who aren’t scientists, or experts in a given field, can be bamboozled. It happens all the time. Jurors are the only people in the courtroom who takes their job very seriously. Jurors are often given instructions so restrictive and exclusionary, that though they know what the right verdict is, they feel an obligation to adhere to the instructions, even when it means it will change how they will vote. I’m still looking, but were all administrative measures exhausted in dealing with the mistakes of the agents before criminal prosecution was started? Why is Johnny Sutton so focused on chasing “bad” agents as opposed to prosecuting bad illegal aliens trafficking humans and drugs?

    alexa kim (c75fd5)

  28. Here are the president’s comments on a pardon of these folks. Yeah, let’s look at the facts. Oh wait, we can’t because you are hiding them.

    Cavuto: Let me ask you sir about the ex Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campeon, both serving time in jail for shooting a runaway Mexican drug dealer. Would you pardon them?

    President: You know, I get asked about pardons on a lot of different cases, and there is a procedure in place, and what I’ve told members of Congress who have written me or called is to just look at the case. Look at the facts in the case. And.. people need to understand why these folks were sent to trial. And why a jury of their peers convicted them. And that’s of course what a president does on any pardon request.

    Cavuto: So… What are you saying?

    President: What I am saying is that I would look at all the facts. And.. there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decision. In other words, there are a series of steps that are followed so that the pardon process is a rational process.

    Cavuto: They’re in jail now, they aren’t going anywhere.

    President: Right. That’s right.

    Cavuto: So.. as things stand now, they will stay in jail.

    President: As things stay now, they will serve their sentence. Right.

    Cavuto: Unless you interfere.

    President: Right, but what I’m trying to tell you is, that there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the justice department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president makes a pardon.

    Cavuto: And we’re not at that yet.

    President: No, we are not at that stage yet.

    Bush on Cavuto: Part 3

    Wesson (c20d28)

  29. Wesson,

    And the question that Cavuto failed to ask which would have cleared the air as to why this case was prosecuted and why there has been no pardon:

    “Were you personally contacted by Vicente Fox regarding this border incident and did you make assurances to him that justice would be done?”

    J Curtis (d21251)

  30. Did I read it correctly that the agents were prohibited from filing with the agency a written report of a shooting? That is just the opposite of good practice by reputable law enforcement agencies. Shootings should always require a written report of any discharge of a firearm, unless, of course, the officers need to plead the Fifth Amendment.

    Daniel Quackenbush (d0dce1)

  31. Given that medical transcriptionists tend to have things done in days, I really don’t think it’s appropriate for the official trial transcript to take months to complete. Even if it is the usual result, I think it does suggest that someone may be doing something other than mere faithful reproduction of what went on in the courtroom.

    (why not simply release the recordings? Come on, the tape recorder was only invented what, half a century ago?)

    My take; the appeals for the convicted just got a massive boost from the prosecution today. Massive. And if the court record contains those lies, somebody’s career in government just got cut short, I hope.

    Robert Perry (a32f47)

  32. As I see stenography practiced these days, the court reporter’s machine makes “tapes” that are computer-readable and the voice recorder is there as a back-up as the reporter edits the computer’s transcription? I.e., what Robert Perry said.

    nk (47858f)

  33. On the radio yesterday, one of the 4 Texas congressmen claimed that he was told that

    “The transcriber has been out sick.

    Since March.”

    stoo (8998d7)

  34. Regarding transcripts and court reporters:

    It is customary in the Western District of Texas for one court reporter to be assigned to each federal judge. During normal court hours, the reporter records testimony from hearings, trials and other proceedings. During the court reporter’s “spare” time, he or she will transcribe those proceedings. This usually means that a typical court reporter will only be able to work on trial transcripts on nights and weekends, so it will take time to get a transcript unless the court reporter doesn’t sleep, has no personal life or moves a transcript to the head of the line.

    Based on my conversations with court reporters, it takes almost as long to produce a transcript as it does to record it in the first place. Most court reporters use a computer program that assists them in recording what people say in court, but there are different programs on the market and every court reporter has his/her own style and shorthand for marginal notes, e.g., noting who was speaking. The programs may transcribe what is said but the court reporter has to make sure it’s clear who said it.

    Trial transcripts are official court documents. As such, they must be much more accurate than medical records and other documents. Each transcript must be certified by the original reporter as correct, and to do this the court reporter must transcribe and review the computer-generated transcript, compare it with his/her notes, and listen to any audio recording. This is a time-consuming process that is even more difficult if there is any problem with the equipment, computer programs, notes, or audio. It’s not uncommon for problems to occur from time-to-time.

    In addition, transcription is more difficult where the participants talk over each other in the courtroom, and this is more likely to happen when a particularly contentious issue arises. Thus, it’s especially important to correctly transcribe these sections. The court reporter may need to listen to the audio and review his/her notes several times to make sure those sections are correct. Furthermore, differences in dialects and languages present problems, and I’m sure in El Paso there were language/dialect issues, not to mention the usual problems faced in all proceedings where people answer with head shakes and mumbled Uh-huhs, rather than “yes” or “no.” Even though everyone tries to keep that from happening, it still happens.

    When faced with these delays in getting transcripts, most people wonder why another court reporter can’t help in the transcription process. Sometimes that happens, such as when a court reporter dies, but rarely. The original court reporter was there and can often decipher unclear notes or recordings and clear up questions in the transcript. A new court reporter can transcribe what is clear in the original recording but cannot certify unclear or questionable sections, and may also have problems identifying who said what. As you can imagine, it doesn’t help to have an uncertified transcript or a transcript with gaps, so courts (and parties) are reluctant to bring in a new court reporter. In addition, few courts have the funding to hire multiple reporters.

    In big cases, courts arrange for same-day or overnight transcripts but that’s almost always limited to cases in which the parties agree to and pay for extra court reporters before trial. In my area, those big cases use 3 reporters – one in the courtroom and 2 in another room listening to a live feed. The courtroom reporter transcribes in the usual manner while the other two listen to the feed, check the contemporaneous transcript, and review and edit alternate sections during breaks. However, to do this, all the court reporters have to know how to use the same court reporting program. There are a variety of programs and not all court reporters know how to use the same program. Thus, especially in areas with a limited number of court reporters, it may be hard to arrange for overnight transcripts even if the parties are willing to pay the often very large fees. In addition, not all court reporters are trained in how to provide contemporaneous reporting and editing.

    I know this is more than most people probably wanted to know but I’m trying to show that it is normal for transcripts to take time. As important as this case is to the Border Patrol agents and to the people that care about or are interested in them, there are dozens of other trials that were equally important to their participants and that are also in line to get trial transcripts. And many of those people are also in jail while they wait.

    DRJ (605076)

  35. NK,

    As always, you are very courteous when I get long-winded.

    DRJ (605076)

  36. These folks have not had a public trial until the transcript is released. They must be released from jail now. I don’t care how sick the judge is or how slow her part-time nanny types. This Culture of Incompetence is fucking ridiculous.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  37. Wesson,

    I know it’s frustrating but a transcript is used in appealing the trial court decision. The transcript has nothing to do with whether the trial court’s decision was final or enforceable pending appeal.

    Many convicted defendants start serving their sentences while their appeals are pending. In the 1980’s, when I represented several criminal defendants on appeal in pro bono cases, several clients completed their sentences and were released from prison before their appeals were decided.

    DRJ (605076)

  38. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

    Kindof funny how nobody can detail what went on in this so-called public trial. If the details aren’t made public until 2008, the prison sentences shouldn’t start until 2008. Ridiculous.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  39. Wesson,

    It was a public trial. If you had wanted to go, you could have.

    I see some other nutcase is hypothesizing that the court reporter is taking so long because she is inserting false facts in the transcript.

    Anyone who says something that silly needs to stop and listen to themselves.

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  40. Everyone who attended the trial, feel free to chime in with details.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  41. Is that sarcasm?

    If so, do you understand what it means to say that a trial is public?

    Patterico (a8fa4a)

  42. I see some other nutcase is hypothesizing that the court reporter is taking so long because she is inserting false facts in the transcript.

    Anyone who says something that silly needs to stop and listen to themselves.

    Comment by Patterico

    Does seem kinda nutty but only because it would be impossible for these people to get away with, even if they did have the court reporter in the bag.

    These are the people who fabricated the “to shoot Mexicans” lie which they fed to US Congressmen. It’s about the worst, most scandalous thing I’ve ever heard of. I’m not sure why I should be more outraged about a Watergate or a Monicagate than about this. Maybe it’s just me.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  43. Wesson,

    Under American law, the right to a public trial was established to avoid Star Chamber proceedings and is the opposite of a secret trial. As long as the Border Patrol agents’ trial was held in court according to the court’s established rules, it was public. It doesn’t matter whether any public spectators were there or whether the rest of us know exactly what happened.

    The transcript is the legal document that recounts what happened at the trial. The rules require an official transcript, and this prevents each party from submitting their own versions of what was said at trial. The point of a transcript is to send it to the appeals court so the court will have one set of facts to use in deciding the legal aspects of the case. With rare exception, an appeal does not question the facts of the case and is only concerned with the legal principles that apply.

    DRJ (605076)

  44. “If you look at many of Hugh Hewitt’s arguments (Constitutional debates, Supreme Court picks, etc.), he unfortunately OFTEN resorts to the “I’m a lawyer and I know better” argument as a way of avoiding real challenges. It is very unbecoming of him and one of the reasons why I no longer take him seriously.

    Comment by Justin Levine”

    I think this is bogus. If you listen to Hewitt, and I do when able, you’ll know he is an excellent interviewer and does a good cross examination although he says he has no trial experience. He did follow the Bush line on Harriet Miers too long and does support the Bush position on borders. You can’t have everything. He has come down hard on the Congress and the weak kneed “resolutions.” You can choose who to listen to. Few of the talk shows share all of my positions. Good interviews are good interviews.

    Mike K (416363)

  45. Wesson,

    In the absence of a transcript, a bystanders’ report prepared by the respective attorneys is the record. So unless you think the agents’ lawyers are also selling them out …?

    I do have a reservation about a “sick” court reporter who might transcribe an incomplete transcript but put that down to my sub-clinical paranoia that made me bring my own court reporter, at $125.00/hr, $3.00/page, when I was representing clients who could afford it.

    nk (2ab789)

  46. NK,

    I’ve had cases in which transcripts were delayed longer than normal or expected. I don’t know what happened in this case but here’s what I’ve seen:

    1. The court reporter has surgery or gets seriously ill, or has a family illness or surgery. All the court’s transcripts are delayed, plus the court reporter is less physically able to do both the normal court reporting and the transcripts when s/he first returns to work. Transcripts are given the lowest priority. This doesn’t mean it takes an extra 6+ months to get a transcript, but it may add an extra month or two to an existing lag time of 6+ months.

    2. The transcript for a particular proceeding is delayed because it is a difficult transcription. The court reporter has to spend extra time on it, either because it contains confusing terminology, multiple parties so there is more cross-talk, or even because it’s a hotly contested case. The court reporter spends extra time on these transcripts because the record will be given so much scrutiny. The longer and more heated this debate becomes, the more I wonder if option 2 might come into play.

    DRJ (605076)

  47. Look. Just give me the god damn video of 0′ 90′ 180′ 270′, with all mics and I’ll transcribe the fucking trial for free, within a week. God Damn, this greater incompetence argument makes me vomit. As painful as it is for weakminded lawyers, everyone is entitled to a public trial. Ah! The! Horror!

    Wesson (c20d28)

  48. Those two border patrol agents should not only be granted full pardons but given CONGRESSIONAL MEDALS OF HONOR for stopping one of these damn drug smugglers and the smugglers imunity should be revoked

    krazy kagu (656fec)

  49. Wesson,

    What makes you think there’s video of this trial? I’m not aware of any court that uses videography to preserve the record.

    DRJ (605076)

  50. DRJ – I think you’re right. Any video record of the trial will make the judge’s part-time nanny look bad for taking 2 years to transcribe the trial. While the convicted are sitting in jail.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  51. Someone asks why there is an “oral report” only policy for a shooting incident with the Border Patrol. It is simple, but it is also not what you would think. It is to prevent the many reports that would be generated when Border Patrol are shot at, both from our side of the border and from the Mexican side. I believe the number of times our BP was shot at in 2006 was about 140. Reports on excursions into the U.S. by armed Mexican military are also discouraged. This fits right in with BP policy (directed by the DHS) that a BP cannot persue an illegal by exceeding the speed limit without specific supervisory permission. No supervisor available, the drug runner speeds away and the BP follows in hot persuit at 55 miles an hour.

    I have to ask, does no one think that eleven months to have the court reporter do the transcription is a tad long? What if that court reporter had died? Does that mean there never would be any transcripts?

    What I am hearing out of Austin is that Vicente Fox personally called the White House over this case and was assured that it would be handled. That would perhaps explain why the Congressmen were also told that the U.S. Attorney filed the indictment prior to the completion of the the investigation of the case.

    Perhaps this policy also explains this case:

    http://www.freegilmer.com

    Last week another BP agent who had been convicted of excessive force and sentenced to (I think) ten years, had his conviction overturned by the appealate court. It seems the U.S. Attorney’s office that prosecuted him failed to present certain evidence to the court and the jury. That evidence was:
    past criminal history of the illegal who had brought charges against the BP
    the deal cut by the U.S. Attorney with the illegal for his testimony against the BP agent which was a green card, permanent residency in the U.S. and some financial compensation

    Patterico, I am glad that you are finally questioning this case. That, after all, is all I ever wanted you to do.

    retire05 (f7a714)

  52. Wesson,

    I get that you’re frustrated by this but that doesn’t make the entire justice system a farce. These men were convicted by a jury of 12 men and women who listened to the evidence and made a decision. Maybe this decision was unjust – I think it might be – but we’re not going to throw out the whole system to fix it. And if you can’t agree with that, then at the very least you could direct some of that sarcasm at the jury that made this decision.

    DRJ (605076)

  53. Does the President of the United States have the authority to obtain a transcript of this trial with 2 days notice?

    Wesson (c20d28)

  54. I’m not surprised at the length of time it has taken the trial transcript to be released, it often takes a long time. I am concerned that Congress was lied to about supposed vital facts of the case.

    I know trials and have been involved in thousands of investigations and many hundred trials. Looking at this case we know that whether the drug smuggler had a gun or not is only supported by the word of the drug smuggler that he was not and the Agents that he was. There we’re no other witnesses or video of the incident. The criminal escaped back into Mexico and could have easily carried a weapon with him. If he had a gun and raised it towards the agents would any jury in the nation convict them? However, any prosecutor knows that with such tainted testimony as from a drug smuggler only talking due to immunity you have to corroborate the scumbags testimony. Speaking without the transcript I would venture that there was testimony to the effect that the agents:
    1. confessed to knowingly shooting at an unarmed suspect;
    2. stated during the interrogation they did not believe the suspect was a threat to them at the time of the shooting;
    3. stated that day they “wanted to shoot a Mexican”;
    4. were belligerent to investigators;
    5. destroyed evidence and lied to investigators.

    I actually can’t see what else would have swayed a jury to believe a drug smuggling scumbag over two Border Patrol agents in this case. I eagerly await the transcript and if this is indeed the case then I will expect Sutton, all the way to Chertoff to end up in the same exact jails the agents were sent to. We can’t let this fade away.

    Buzzy (7417f4)

  55. Wesson,

    That’s an interesting question. My first reaction is that he can’t, because this is a judiciary matter and the executive branch can’t compel action by the judiciary. Of course, a President has enormous influence so if he were to make a request I’m sure it would get people’s attention. However, I don’t know of a legal basis that would allow him to obtain the transcript – unless (perhaps) he directed the Justice Department to obtain a transcript for purposes of a pardon review. I think that’s unlikely.

    DRJ (605076)

  56. DRJ – Thanks for your thoughtful calming comments. Yeah, I know. The presidential interview above that I transcribed (in 5 minutes for free!) just lights me up. At any time, Bush can call any one of Gonzales’ advisers into his office and get an answer to the question, “is this conviction bullshit or what”?

    President Bush can do anything he wants, and everyone knows this trial is bullshit.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  57. This is not complicated. The National Review Online had a link yesterday to the entire DHS OIG Investigation report which was released pursuant to a FOIA request. This report includes a HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT by Compean where he admits 1) never seeing a gun, 2) trying to strike the suspect with the butt of his shotgun before falling into the levy when he lost his balance, 3) picking up his shell casings and throwing them in the levy because he was afraid he would get in trouble for the shooting, and 4) that only 3 BP agents were present when the shooting took place, that others came later, that they knew about the shooting but everyone agreed to not mention it to the supervisors when they arrived to protect Compean and Ramos from discipline.

    The OIG report tracks exactly with the published facts of the gov’t case, and undercuts most of the claims made by the agents’ advocates. Its really makes fools out of the advocates who have bought the agents’ post-trial crapola statements.

    The shooting took place on 2/17. The OIG investigation was initiated on 3/4, based on the report of the shooting filed by the Ariz. BP agent whose family knew the suspect’s family from their home town in Mexico. OIG checked with El Paso and there was NO REPORT of any shooting incident on 2/17, though there was a reported seizure of 700 lbs of marijuana with the driver reported to have escaped. The OIG investigators had NO INFO on who the involved agents were until the reviewed radio traffic and reports of the seizure — in other words, NO ONE REPORTED THE DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS BY COMPEAN AND RAMOS on 2/17.

    The OIG investigators made contact with the suspect in Mexico by working back through the family of the Ariz. BP agent who had received the first report from his mother. The OIG investigators interviewed him first by telephone to get his version of events.

    They then tried to interview Compean, Ramos, and the third BP agent present when the shots were fired. They were only able to contact the third agent, and he denied that Compean and Ramos had fired their weapons.

    That agent called the investigators back the next day and said he lied to them, that Compean and Ramos HAD fired their weapons, and everyone who knew agreed to keep quiet. The third agent’s description of events leading up to the discharge by Compean and Ramos EXACTLY matched the suspect in Mexico’s description. The third agent said categorically that the fleeing suspect DID NOT HAVE A GUN.

    COMPEAN and Ramos’s guns were taken for test-firing and ballistics comparison with the bullet taken from the suspect’s butt. It was matched to Ramos’ gun.

    Compean was arrested, read his Miranda rights, and gave a full statement, including making a handwritten statement where he made several incriminating admissions. Ramos refused to make a statement.

    Re the transcripts — they are never prepared until after a Notice of Appeal is filed, and a Designation of Record is made. That happened in November. Its not unusual for a 3-4 week trial for it to take a few months for the transcripts to be finalized by the court reporter. Judge Cardone’s court reporter’s telephone number is listed on the website for the WD of Texas. If you want to know how much longer it’s going to take, call him up and ask him.

    WLS (43aa38)

  58. Here’s the link to the OIG file released pursuant to the FOIA request. Its a big pdf file, but Compean’s handwritten statement is on pages 62-65.

    The statement of the third BP agent who was on the scene when the shots were fired is on page 16.

    http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/OIG_foia_RamosCompean.pdf

    WLS (43aa38)

  59. The BP policy on “not making a statement” is less than it seems. The policy specifically says the agents involved in the shooting shall not make a written report of the circumstances of the shooting. The BP policy EXPRESSLY requires that they report the fact that they were involved in a shooting.

    Because all agent-involved shootings are investigated by OIG and FBI (usually), having agents not file a written report of the circumstances is for their own protection. It means the first statement they make of the circumstances will be the oral statement they give to the investigators — usually the day of the shooting or the next day. Not preparing a written report prevents them from contradicting themselves when they later give an oral recounting to investigators. Such contradications might be innocent mistakes, but they look terrible when the agent involved in the shooting writes one thing and then tells the outside investigator something else when interviewed.

    WLS (43aa38)

  60. WLS,

    Thanks for the link. Did you read it? I only had a chance to skim it but I did notice a couple of things, including the first paragraph on page 1:

    Trial Transcript Records

    Former Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean were convicted by a jury in a public trial, and the trial transcript is not in Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) possession. Requests for the trial transcript should be submitted to: William G. Stewart, II, Acting Assistant Director, FOIA/Privacy Unit, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Department of Justice, Room 7300, 600 E Street, N.W. Washington, DC 0530-0001. Alternatively, a copy of the trial transcript may be obtained from the Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas at the following address: 219 United States Courthouse, 511 East San Antonio Avenue, El Paso, TX 79901.

    I also noticed Compean’s handwritten four page sworn statement that appears at pages 62-65 that you suggested we read. Here’s my transcription of that statement [emphasis supplied]:

    “The alien was coming at me when he climbed into the ditch. I told him to stop and put his hands up. He kept coming at me and I tried pushing him away from me with the butt end of the shotgun I had. I slipped into the ditch and the alien went around me. After he went around me, I jumped on his back and and we fell into the ditc into the vega. We tumbled and wrestled for a little bit. I got some dirt in my eyes and we he got up and started running back south towards Mex[i]co. When he was running south he was pointing something shiny with his left hand. It looked like a gun. This is when I started shooting. I shot about 10 or 11 rounds. At this time Agent Ramos was already standing next to me. He took a shot and then we saw the alien climbing out of the river. We holstered our weapons and walked back to the levee. When we were on the levee I picked up the brass I had seen. Someone asked if I had hit him. I answered no I don’t think so. When When we were getting off the levee I asked [redacted] if [redacted] could look for some rounds and if [redacted] could. I think I picked up about 10 rounds. I did not report the shooting because I did not think anything had happened to the guy. I was afraid I was going to get in trouble. I think [redacted] picked up a few rounds and [redacted] told me he had thrown them in a ditch. I had The rounds I picked up I threw them in the ditch where we we were at, on the same day right after I picked them up. Afterwards Agents [redacted] and [redacted] asked what had happened. I told them I think Nacho might have hit him. When I started shooting at the alien he was about halfways between the levee and the riverbank. When Nacho took the last shot he was the alien was climbing into the river. When we saw him climbing out of the river on the Mexican side, the alien looked like he was limping and he was walking back slowly. I think [redacted] said a van had stopped to pick the alien up on the Mexican side. Nacho is the nickname for Ignacio Ramos. When we were on the drainage ditch the alien was coming straight at me. I heard someone say hit him, but I don’t know who it was. W My intent was to kill the alien because I thought he had a gun, but I never really saw for certain that he had a gun. From what I remember the following agents were present: Ignacio Ramos, [redacted …] and [redacted]. FOS [redacted] showed up after everything happened and took pictures of the van. I think Nacho was also trying th to kill the alien.”
    Statement of Jose Alonzo Compean.
    Signed [redacted].
    Signed and sworn (or affirmed) to before me this 19th day of March, 2005.
    [Signature of DHS IG Special Agent redacted]
    [Witness’s signature redacted]

    A summary of the IG’s conclusions starts at page 10 of the report and includes an acknowledgement that Aldrete-Davila initially lied to the Border Patrol officials about the incident because he did not want his family to know he was smuggling marijuana. Page 18 of the report begins the IG’s summary of Agent Compean’s statement, and it’s interesting to compare that with the statement transcribed above. A typed version of Compean’s statement appears at page 54.

    DRJ (605076)

  61. I understand your point and in a legal sense, I can agree. But in a political sense, your argument is empty. I respect your stance. Please try to understand mine.
    The US Attorney in the case made extraordinary efforts to recruit a career criminal who everyone agrees was in the US illegally. He granted this person blanket immunity. He set us up for a major lawsuit, that cannot be properly defended. He assumed that a split second decision, made in conditions of chaos and danger, should be reviewed as if it were done in a cool and calm courtroom. He demanded that those risking their lives for us on the border be treated as if they were investigating traffic violations.
    He Nifonged the Agents. He did it with more skill and probably within the “ethics” of the legal profession. The public facts of the case make the transcript of the case meaningless. By the time court had convened, he trampled on the defendants.
    Technically, the law has spoken and the Agents are guilty, although a appeal is underway. It makes no difference. The cost is political.
    I will not vote for any Presidential candidate who does not pledge to undo this injustice. I will urge everyone I know to refuse to vote for any candidate who condones this abuse of power. I have voted in every election since 1968. I have voted Republican every time but once. I am the base. I’m not alone. This is a national security issue. The border will never be secure if the men and women patrolling it have to call the Border Patrol lawyers every time they need to defend themselves. This case is more important than all the posturing and puffery that has gone on in Congress over border policy.
    Sorry for the rant, but remember the cost is not legal but political. And it is real.

    Ken Hahn (b0ed6b)

  62. Mike K –

    Your repsonse has nothing to do with the fact that Hewitt regularly uses the “Im a lawyer, and you’re not, so I know better” line of argument. Do you deny this? If not, do you condone it?

    Justin Levine (ee9fe2)

  63. This is not complicated…. This report includes a HANDWRITTEN STATEMENT by Compean where he admits 1) never seeing a gun,

    Comment by WLS

    From Compean’s hand written sworn statement, page 62 of the pdf:

    “When he was running south he was pointing something shiny with his left hand. It looked like a gun. This is when I started to shoot.”

    Do you see the prosecution’s deception there?

    Compean states that he thought he saw a gun, even though he isn’t 100% sure that the shiny object was a gun. “Never” is not synonymous with “Perhaps”.

    Can any of the prosecutors’ defenders admit that Compean never claimed that there was no gun?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  64. Wow WLS, thats some selective reading comprehension.

    Gabriel (6d7447)

  65. There’s probably very little chance that this is involved in the case, but Bush had some links to some questionable (but kind-hearted) people.

    TLB (cc42f6)

  66. DRJ, re your #61: (My server’s been down for service, BTW)

    Good Lord! That’s not a statement, that’s a confession! There’s more to this case than meets the eye.

    As for jurors believing criminals testifying under immunity for the prosecution — they don’t. They believe the prosecutor. A credible prosecutor who elicits and credibly argues the criminals’ testimony. The John Gotti trial is a perfect example. Without Giuliani, the jurors would have thrown up when “The Bull” took the stand.

    nk (5a2f98)

  67. NK,

    Please expand on why you think Compean’s statement is more like a confession. If I were defense counsel, I would be concerned about Compean’s inconsistent statements regarding whether Aldrete-Davila had been shot, and his admissions that he had an intent to kill and that he did not report this incident because he thought he would get in trouble. That’s a lot of concerns so maybe this is a confession, but I need help analyzing why.

    DRJ (605076)

  68. As a former court reporter, let me say this about transcript production. Understand that different jurisdictions run things differently.

    Reporters usually do not produce a verbatim transcript until one party orders it for purposes of appeal. Sometimes there is no order even then, or just a partial order, because the appellant is arguing law not facts. The reporter produces it on
    her/his own time, for the most part, being in court the rest of the time, which is why the party requesting it has to pay her directly.

    So if it was ordered in November that’s because someone decided to appeal then. One day of trial can be 50-200 pages, depending on the judge’s habits, so do the math. Yes, extensions are sometimes requested and granted, which gives everybody extra time to prepare. In a major case like this, I think everybody could use it. Also, Federal courts here in LA are extremely heavy, maybe there too.

    Judges have been known to suspend reporters without pay until they get appeal transcripts completed, and my friends in heavy trial courts welcome this – it’s the only way their courts will give them time off to prepare the transcript. Others, like my friends who do trials like OJ and the Menendi, employ their own clerical staff and pay them, just to get the biggies out timely.

    Patricia (824fa1)

  69. Everyone who is reading something exculpatory into Compean’s statement needs to consider the fact that several portions of Compean’s statement are flatly contradicted by other testimony. Thus, the parts of Compean’s statement where he makes self-serving allegations like “I saw something shiny in his hand”, are entitled to little or not credibility.

    For example, Compean says he was trying to “push” the suspect back into the levy with the butt of his shotgun when they fell together, and then wrestled around.

    The suspect told investigators that he was walking towards Compean with his hands in the air when another BP agent yelled “hit him” — Compean admits hearing that. The suspect says Compean took the shotgun away from his shoulder and began to turn it to hit him when Compean slipped and fell face first into the levy. The suspect said he then began to run.

    Interestingly, the 3rd BP agent at the scene — his name is redacted — after first saying to investigators that nothing happened, the next day called the investigators and said he had lied. He then described what happened with respect to the shotgun and Compean falling into the levy, and his description matches EXACTLY with that given by the suspect. Compean was trying to hit the suspect in the face with the butt of his shotgun — not pushing him away as Compean says — when he slipped and fell face first into the levy. The suspect took off running, and Compean came up firing with his handgun. That 3rd BP agent said Compean never said he thought the suspect had a gun. That 3rd BP agent said when the suspect was coming back towards Compean with his hands in the air, his hands were open and empty. That third BP agent testified at trial.

    The investigator notes in his report that if Compean’s version was true, it would involve the absurd claim that Compean was holding the barrel of his loaded shotgun with two hands, with the end of the barrel pointed at Compean, while presenting the trigger to the suspect as he attempted to “push” him with the butt. Yeah, sure he did.

    Next, compare the investigator’s recounting of the 3 different versions of the sequence of events surrounding Ramos coming to where Compean was and firing his one shot. Compean tells one version in his statement, he gives a different version in his testimony, and Ramos gives still a third version in his testimony.

    Here is what the charging decision came down to:

    Compean and Ramos did not know drugs were in the van when they driver fled the van and headed for the border.

    Compean did not see a weapon that reasonably put him in fear for his safety and the safety of others.

    Compean tried to strike the driver with the butt of his shotgun, lost his balance, and fell into the levy, which probably made him mad.

    Compean then fired 14-15 rounds at the driver as he fled back towards Mexico.

    Compean, acknowledging that he thought he would get in trouble for the shooting, attempted to cleanse the scene by picking up his brass and throwing them in the levy.

    Neither Compean, Ramos, nor the third agent at the scene reported an agent-involved shooting as was required by policy.

    DHS OIG was not informed of the agent-involved shooting, and only initiated its investigation based on a tip to another BP agent. DHS OIG was initially told by El Paso BP station that there was no shooting on 2/17.

    So, you have an out-of-policy shooting, and you have clear evidence of obstruction by covering it up.

    Pretty simple decision to prosecute.

    wls (077d0d)

  70. WLS,

    I guess we should be happy they even bothered to have a trial.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  71. DRJ,

    Mainly for the same thing that jumped out at you — “intent to kill”. That’s justified by reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or to another innocent person as a general rule. (It has been fine-tuned by case law in specific situations.) The suspect having a gun is not enough as a prima facie matter. I cannot blame a prosecutor for pursuing the case after he had read such a statement.

    To say a word my daughter learned from another kid in preschool: “Whadda”! Didn’t this agent pay attention to the Miranda warnings he had been taught to give?

    nk (35ba30)

  72. The suspect told investigators that he was walking towards Compean with his hands in the air when another BP agent yelled “hit him” — Compean admits hearing that.

    Why do you think someone said “hit him”?

    Do you think an agent, with several other witnesses nearby, would yell “hit him” just for entertainment purposes?

    Or is it more likely that the agent, feeling that Davila was a threat at that particular moment, was warning Compean to take this action for Compean’s own safety? Or as a suggestion, as opposed to “shoot him”?

    Here you have a suspect moving towards a law enforcement officer who is pointing a gun at him, and gets within a range that the officer can actually push him away with the gun butt. That scenerio usually ends with a dead suspect but we are expected to believe that Compean used too much force at this point?

    I can promise you that in that situation I would have shot Davila dead without a second thought. Find me a law enforcement officer who says he’d do otherwise.

    In a sane world, Compean should have been suspended for a week or two for not shooting Davila but instead offering him the trigger end of the rifle.

    In an insane world, Compean reasoned correctly that he’d spend the rest of his life in prison for doing the right thing in that instance. The agent who yelled “hit him”, came to the same correct conclusion.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  73. I understand this was a two-week trial. For every hour of testimony, it takes aproximately two to four hours to transcribe. A two-week trial would take at least four weeks to transcribe, working on the transcript full time.

    But a court reporter in federal court can’t work on a transcript full time. He/she must be in court for other matters. The court reporter will also be transcribing other transcripts. I transcribe my orders as I get them, and I can’t put a particular defendant at the head of the line because he happens to be the latest cause celebre. Remember, the litigants in other matters think their cases are important, too.

    I understand the trial transcript was ordered at the end of November. This means the reporter probably didn’t get the order until December. We don’t just pull transcripts out of our butts, you know.

    As far as the hints that the court reporter is somehow in cahoots with the government, that’s absurd. Most of the prosecutors don’t even bother to remember my name.

    lc (1401be)

  74. I haven’t looked through this thread to see if this news has been posted yet.

    http://www.sbsun.com/news/ci_5199815

    First two paragraphs from the article:

    “Two Border Patrol agents who testified against two co-workers convicted of shooting a drug smuggler will be fired for changing their stories about events surrounding the shooting, according to documents obtained by The Sun’s sister newspaper, the Ontario-based Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.”

    “Sources inside the Border Patrol also say Oscar Juarez, a third agent who testified against Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, resigned from the agency last month shortly before he was to be fired.”

    Mark (2dedd8)

  75. Dear Mr. P.

    Alot of nonsense has gone on back and forth about the transcripts.

    first, Transcripts are not public property and in the case of prosecution of law enforcement officers than can be sealed they probably will never be released to the public for the protection of the witnessess and the jury.

    second, The western District judges seem to all be using the CART system
    http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/gen_info/judgeFAQ.asp

    It wouldn’t take much investigating to get a court reports name in the el Paso district and find out Judge Cardones court reporter

    (Cart system is the real time processing of keys pressed into electronic media http://ncraonline.org/Foundation/Research/cart.htm)

    third: 5 border patrol agents including three saw the surrender, did not unholster their weapons, nor reported the crime and 2 have now violated their limited immunity and will face expulsion and probably conspiracy to obstruct justice

    http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=176359

    forth according to the following news articles

    http://banderasnews.com/0701/nw-usagentshoots.htm

    Agents have been in at least 23 agent-involved shootings since 1993, many prompted by rock-throwing, Star archives show. Yet, an accurate count remains elusive.

    “This only speaks to the need for an independent entity to look into these cases,” said Kat Rodriguez, coordinator for Derechos Humanos, an immigrant-rights organization in Tucson.

    It also illustrates the escalating violence along the border and the need to examine protocols on agents’ approved use of firearms, she said.

    The last time an agent shot and killed someone in Cochise County was June 4, 2003, near the Douglas Port of Entry. In that incident, agent Cesar Cervantes shot Ricardo Olivares Martinez, 22, several times in the chest and killed him. Olivares Martinez had been throwing rocks at Cervantes.

    Comment by EricPWJohnson — 2/13/2007 @ 1:31 am

    EricPWJohnson (405d78)

  76. When the transcripts are done, they’ll be filed with the clerk’s office. Anybody who wants to sit in the clerk’s office and read them, can. Anybody who wants to pay the court reporter for copies, can. What would be the point of sealing transcripts of a public trial?

    An appeal isn’t filed until a defendant is sentenced. Transcripts aren’t ordered until an appeal is filed. The defense (that’s right, the defense) didn’t order the transcripts until recently (when the appeal was filed).

    I know every right-wing nut wants to see a conspiracy in the transcripts not being done, but it simply isn’t so. This is approximately a 3,000 page trial, and transcript production is time-consuming.

    lc (1b1e61)

  77. The name of the court reporter is David A. Perez. I know this because I have copies of three transcripts prepared during trial–as well as the transcribed opening statement-and have been writing about them.

    Many other parts of the transcript have been finalized this month. I looked at the docket sheet.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  78. To clarify my last comment, I have copies of the transcribed testimony of three of the BP agents who testified against Compean and Ramos.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  79. And something else about an appeal. Juries judge facts. Judges deal with the law.

    An appeal court isn’t going to be outraged by the facts in this case and set these two guys free. They couldn’t if they wanted to. The appeal court deals with the legal rulings: the evidence the judge allowed, the objections that were sustained or overruled.

    The jury spoke to the facts, and they convicted these two guys.

    lc (1b1e61)

  80. Transcripts full have now been posted to be viewed by all on the Us Attorney for the Western districts Website

    Mystery solved

    they were and have been always available from the Executive Office of the Us Attorneys in Washington

    No smoking gun

    read the Vasquez testimoney while the shooting going on hes scrolling through the drug guys phone

    Doing what?

    Why?

    In the middle of a serious gun fight?

    Minds racing

    EricPWJohnson (405d78)

  81. well now that these two agents have been convicted for doing their job,i just wonder how many agents out there are going to be scared to do their job and just let them drug runners through and pretend they tried to stop them but were not able to just to avoid getting into any trouble. i want to congradulate the jury on giving these drug running slime balls more lee way to run their drugs. Now these drug runners can take a chance and if things go wrong they can sue the agency and get rich.wow what a life

    ruben (20fa05)

  82. If the agents initially lied about whether there was a shooting, and made no statement as to the fact there was a shooting until weeks later, and picked up evidence of that shooting in such a way as to destroy it’s time/place evidence–and made statements to the effect that they were afraid they’d get into trouble…

    …Then they were not doing their job. I’m glad they are in prison.

    Police have far too much trust given them for them not to be landed on when they dissemble, even if, had they done the same thing without concealment, they would have done no wrong.

    And if drugs were legal as they ought to be, then they would be imported in trucks, with a manifest and a duty paid, if they were not produced locally, and there would be no more violence associated with the drug trade than there is with alcohol.

    When was the last time beer distributors shot at each other or did a drive-by?

    Oh yeah, when alcohol was stupidly (but at least constitutionally) made illegal.

    Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp

    Tom Perkins (4b1ee0)

  83. […] If the agents initially lied about whether there was a shooting, and made no statement as to the fact there was a shooting until weeks later, and picked up evidence of that shooting in such a way as to destroy it s time/place … – More – […]

    Shooting » Blog Archives » A Need to Educate the Dedicated Hunter (da05be)

  84. how can they lie there were 5 other agents some of which helped them pick up and throw the casings including atleast one supervisor. and in the border patrol as long as you report it verbally to a supervisor you are within the rules.And a supervisor arrived within ten minutes of the incident and was told what happened. and if they are guilty why were the rest of the agents not charged with being involved in the cover up.

    ruben (b091d8)

  85. I interviewed a Border patrol Agent Saturday night. Two names came up. Johnny Sutton and Debra Kanoff. Both have a history of prosecuting Law Enforcement. The guy (according to my source)that got shot in the ass, had documents provided to him by the DEA because he is an informant. He is part of the Ciariloa (sp?) Fuentes Cartel which is aligned with Mexicali. He was involved in the “House of Slaughter” in Juarez where 30 people were killed. More to come.

    Gene Pinkham (e08766)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1233 secs.