Patterico's Pontifications

2/15/2007

DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — Volume VI (Rene Sanchez and Chris Sanchez Testimony)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:00 am



DRJ has done more work summarizing the Border Patrol shooting trial. I have included DRJ’s summary in the extended entry. Due to time constraints, I have not included any commentary. This is all DRJ:

Vol VI. – Evidence begins at p 225:

Witness #1 – Rene Sanchez

Government direct:

225-227 – Border Patrol agent, 6-1/2 years, after attending the BP academy he was stationed at Harlingen TX for 4 years and Willcox AZ the last 2 years, age 33, born El Paso TX, grew up in San Isidro, Mexico (outside Juarez) but returned to US at age 15-16 where he worked for City/El Paso-toll collector & parks dept. prior to joining BP.

228 – R. Sanchez knew El Paso BP agents because he was their instructor at BP academy.

229-230 – R. Sanchez received a phone call from his mother-in-law (Gregoria Toquinto) in late Feb/early March 2005 advising that her “friend’s son had been shot by a BP agent.” Friend’s name is Macaria Aldrete-Davila. R. Sanchez’ MIL told him this because she wanted R. Sanchez to report the shooting.

231 – R. Sanchez told his MIL to get more information from her friend about when the shooting occurred, and to take her daughter’s cell phone with her so R. Sanchez could find out what happened. R. Sanchez talked to Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila via cell phone, who told R. Sanchez “he had been shot in the back while he was trying to — to evade apprehension.”

232-234 – R. Sanchez and Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila knew each other growing up as children. Aldrete-Davila’s older brother was R. Sanchez’ friend and he was the chamberlain (escort) for Aldrete-Davila’s sister’s quinceanera. R. Sanchez hasn’t had contact with their family since he was 18, although his MIL does have contact with the Aldrete-Davila family.

234 – Upon being reminded of the date by his mother, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila told R. Sanchez he had been wounded on Feb. 17, 2005. R. Sanchez told his supervisor in Willcox AZ, Russell Karhoff, who told R. Sanchez to get an exact date, time and place for the shooting.

235-236 – R. Sanchez used BPETS (a BP computer program) to locate any BP shootings in February 2005 or any report regarding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. There were no results.

236-237 – R. Sanchez filed a memo regarding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila’s claims. BP agent Chris Sanchez contacted him about the report and asked R. Sanchez to have Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila call him (C. Sanchez). After doing that, R. Sanchez had nothing further to do with the case.

Ramos cross-examination:

238 – San Isidro, Mexico is a small town with about 2000 people. R. Sanchez’ friend was Sergio Aldrete-Davila. R. Sanchez did hear about people from San Isidro after he left.

239-240 – Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila’s mother called R. Sanchez’ MIL on February 28, 2005. R. Sanchez wrote a memo regarding the call a few days later. However, his memo (DEF RAMOS EX 1) incorrectly says he first talked to his MIL on March 3, 2005. That was the date of his second call with his MIL.

241-242 – R. Sanchez was not authorized to use the BP computer system to check information for his friends/family/friends of family, but he did that between February 28-March 3, 2005, regarding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila.

242 – R. Sanchez wasn’t worried about sending his MIL to talk to Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in Mexico because she and he both knew Aldrete-Davila. R. Sanchez though Aldrete-Davila was shot trying to illegally cross the border.

244 – R. Sanchez’ first phone call with Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was March 3, 2005, when his MIL traveled to Mexico and met with Aldrete-Davila.

244 – To his knowledge, R. Sanchez’ MIL had no further contact with Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila after March 3, 2005.

245 – R. Sanchez’ MIL told him that Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila was illegally crossing the border into the US and was shot as he attempted to return to Mexico. Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila initially told R. Sanchez the same thing.

Compean cross examination:

246 – R. Sanchez’ job as a BP agent is traffic check operations, i.e., to check for illegal immigrants at highways and checkpoints. R. Sanchez is currently on light duty after dislocating his shoulder.

247 – Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila did not want to report the shooting but his mother wanted him to report it. Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila told R. Sanchez why he did not want to report the shooting.

248 – R. Sanchez learned that Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila received medical treatment in “a clinica in San Agustin” Mexico.

Government re-direct:

248 – R. Sanchez’ supervisor, R. Karhoff, told Sanchez to investigate Aldrete-Davila’s claim and that’s why Sanchez used BPRETS.

249 – Aldrete-Davila told R. Sanchez the bullet was still in his body. Sanchez did not speak to Aldrete-Davila alone until the 3rd phone conversation, when he provided “additional information.” [Lots of leading questions but no objection.]

250 – Officer’s range of options regarding use of force: Officer presence/verbal commands, takedown techniques, O/C (oleo resin capsicum – pepper spray),.

Ramos re-cross:

251 – Clarification regarding R. Sanchez’ 3 conversations with Aldrete-Davila. R. Sanchez talked to Aldrete-Davila a third time because he [Aldrete-Davila] did not want to call BP agent C. Sanchez. R. Sanchez told him that he had to call to report the shooting. R. Sanchez stated he did not tell Aldrete-Davila he could file a lawsuit against the US for the shooting.

252 – R. Sanchez also talked to Aldrete-Davila the Sunday prior to this hearing. The purpose was social – to speak to him.

252-255 – R. Sanchez did not ask permission from R. Karhoff to use the BPRETS computer. He felt he did not need to since Karhoff told him to gather information in their oral conversation on February 28, 2005. Sanchez said he told Karhoff that the report came via his family members.

255 – R. Sanchez said he knew Aldrete-Davila was a truck driver because he saw him in Reynosa in 2004 when he visited a friend who works for Delphi. When questioned why he said he hadn’t seen Aldrete-Davila since he was 18, Sanchez stated he had seen Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, not Sergio Aldrete-Davila.

257 – R. Sanchez visits his wife’s family in Tres Sacales, which is across from Fabens and near San Isidro.

Compean’s re-cross:

258 – The prior Sunday, R. Sanchez saw Aldrete-Davila and C. Sanchez when they rode together to meet with the prosecutors and prepare for the trial.

Government re-direct:

259 – R. Sanchez, C. Sanchez, and Aldrete-Davila were together the prior Sunday for about 1 minute.

259-260 – R. Sanchez saw Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in Reynosa when he visited a friend, Jose Osuna Toquinto, who works for Delphi. Sanchez saw Aldrete-Davila at “his mom’s house.”

Ramos re-cross:

261-262 – Jose Osuna Toquinto, R. Sanchez’ friend in Reynosa, is related to his wife’s family. His mother is a cousin to Sanchez’ MIL.

No further questions but witness was not excused.

Witness #2 – Christopher Sanchez

263 – DHS special agent, Office of the Inspector General (OIG), El Paso, Texas. His job is to investigate employees of the DHS.

264 – Prior to this job, C. Sanchez was a special agent with ICE, the Customs Service, and the IG/Dept. of Veteran’s Affairs, all in Phoenix AZ. Before that he was employed by the US Commerce Dept, Export Enforcement, in Chicago. His prior experience includes 8 years in the Marine Corp.

265-266 – During his time in El Paso since November 2004, C. Sanchez primarily investigated complaints of assault against BP agents. He was the duty officer in March 2005 and handled the complaint regarding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. The complaint was R. Sanchez’ memo and it was given to C. Sanchez by Oscar Benavides of the US Border Patrol, Office of Internal Audit. There was also a memo from R. Karhoff.

266-267 – C. Sanchez began his investigation by reading the memos, which said Aldrete-Davila had crossed at Las Pompas. Since Sanchez had only been in the El Paso area for 4 months, he asked who was responsible for Las Pompas and was told it was the Ysleta BP station. His primary objective was to identify who the BP agents were.

267-268 – He initially requested who was on duty at Ysleta on February 17, 2005, and the radio traffic (“radio transmissions between BP agents and sector”). Repeater (tower) transmissions are recorded on tape and can be transcribed. Car to car transmissions are not recorded.

268 – C. Sanchez requested and listened to the recorded transmissions from the Ysleta BP station agents for February 17, 2005. He did not find anything.

269-270 – After getting further information from R. Sanchez, C. Sanchez requested repeater tapes and a duty roster for the Fabens area for the afternoon of February 17, 2005. From that, C. Sanchez was able to identify the location and the people who were working that day.

270 – C. Sanchez tried to call Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila at the number provided in R. Sanchez’ memo, but he was never able to make contact. C. Sanchez asked R. Sanchez to have Aldrete-Davila call him. R. Sanchez called C. Sanchez on March 10, 2005, and Aldrete-Davila called on March 11, 2005.

271-273 – C. Sanchez obtained more information from Aldrete-Davila in his March 11, 2005, telephone call. Based on that, he listened to and personally transcribed radio transmissions from a specific time period. He also identified BP paperwork regarding an incident with a van and contacted the tow truck driver who towed the van that day. On March 15, the tow truck driver took C. Sanchez to the place where he picked up the van. “ …you could still see the – I guess it was the front tires of the van, where it had gone into the drainage ditch. *** You could see the tire tracks, when the tow truck driver pointed it out to me.” The area is farming community. Sanchez took photographs that day and took more on other days.

273 – C. Sanchez returned on March 16, 2005, to the location where the van was towed from with a metal detector and used it on the levee, drainage ditch, and vega. The drainage ditch is filled with dirty sewage water and he did not go in the water to look for casings. Sanchez had not yet talked to Arturo Vasquez or Compean.

274-275 – A day or two later, a sector evidence team (BP trained and certified evidence team) returned to look for casings where the van was parked, on the levee, the levee road, the south side of the vega, and in the water. The team did not find any casings.

275 – C. Sanchez thinks he found a couple of old, weathered shotgun shell casings in his search of the area.

275 – Ramos and Compean were each issued .40 caliber Beretta by the BP. No casings of that caliber or from any handgun were found at the site.

276 – On March 11, 2005, C. Sanchez arranged a meeting for Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila at the American Consulate in Cuidad Juarez. Aldrete-Davila did not want to meet with Sanchez. The government prosecutor who was handling the case at the time [probably Brandy ___] granted Aldrete-Davila “limited use immunity.” Sanchez and his supervisor met with Aldrete-Davila in Ciudad Juarez but the prosecutor did not attend.

277 –279:

“Q. Okay. And — but what did she instruct you to instruct Aldrete-Davila was the meaning of the immunity agreement?

A. That — to provide full cooperation.

Q. Okay. In exchange for?

A. In exchange, he would not be prosecuted.

Q. Okay. For anything he’s ever done in his entire life?

A. No, for the incidents that occurred that day.

Q. Okay. Now, you do go to Juarez and talk to him. Is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And when you go to Juarez and meet with him, do you find that he’s injured?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. What is wrong?

A. When he walked into the American consulate, he had a – he was limping. He had crutches, and he had a large — he had a catheter coming out. It was like a red hose, and it was attached to a large urine bag.

Q. Okay. At this point in time, did you know who shot him?

A. No, ma’am.

Q. Could he identify who shot him?

A. No, ma’am.

Q. Did you attempt to make an identification with him?

A. I had the driver’s license photos of the different Border Patrol agents that were on duty that day, and he could not identify any of them.

Q. Okay. How many Border Patrol agents were on duty that day?

A. I think 11 or 12. I would have to think about it.

Q. Were the defendants among those photographs?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. The defendants’ pictures among those?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. And he couldn’t identify who had — he had encountered on that day?

A. No, ma’am. He could only describe one agent that he encountered on the drainage ditch.

Q. Okay. And how did he describe that agent?

A. The shortest, heavyset, with dark skin.

Q. Okay. And I’m going to call you back to testify later about the specifics. But let me ask you what you did about his medical condition.

A. At that time, we obtained — after we had spoke to him, we obtained a border crossing card and brought him in to the William Beaumont Army Medical Center, and — to determine if it could be removed safely, without endangering his life. He stated that he wanted the bullet removed, and we determined it could be — it could be removed without

endangering his life, and so they did so.

Q. Okay. Were you present with him in the operating room?

A. I was present, right behind the doctor who did the surgery.

Q. Okay. Now that you knew you had a bullet, what, if anything, did you do with regard to the guns that were possessed by the agents that were on duty from the Fabens station on that day?

A. Basically, we came up with the ruse, working again with the members of the Office of Internal Audit, U.S. Border Patrol, here in the El Paso sector. One of the other agents went down to the Fabens Border Patrol station under the ruse that we’re doing an audit, and we’re exchanging — we gave them new weapons for their weapons. And, again, so we could run ballistics.”

279-280 – No reports of shootings in Fabens on February 17, 2005. Under BP rules, all gun discharges or observations of discharges must be reported and an investigation will be done.

280 – C. Sanchez took custody of the bullet removed from Aldrete-Davila and took it to the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) crime lab.

281-282 – OIG did not collect the weapons belonging to Ramos, Compean, or Oscar Juarez. They were on leave or days off. Their weapons were collected later. Ramos’ weapon was taken March 18, 2005. The Texas DPS matched the bullet to Ramos’ gun.

282 – C. Sanchez had interviewed Oscar Juarez, who told him that Ramos and Compean had chased the alien into the vega so he knew “one or both of them, was my shooter.” He also had more details from Oscar Juarez and Arturo Vasquez.

283 – BP agents are issued .40 caliber handguns and can check out a shotgun or M-4 during their shift. C. Sanchez verified that, on February 17, 2005, Compean had checked out a shotgun and Ramos an M-4, an automatic rifle. Sanchez collected the shotgun checked out by Compean.

Ramos cross-ex:

286 – Aldrete-Davila said he crossed the border in the Las Pompas / San Elizario area, so that’s why the OIG first looked at the Ysleta station, but that’s not where Aldrete-Davila was. The initial memo from R. Sanchez said that Aldrete-Davila said he crossed at Las Pompas (Ysleta area) and was shot as he crossed back into Mexico, but C. Sanchez later found out that’s not how it happened. It occurred in the Fabens area.

289 – There are 5 BP stations in the El Paso area: El Paso Unit 1 (downtown), Fabens, Ysleta, Santa Teresa, and Deming. Each has their own local channel on the radio for transmissions, but the sector records all transmissions on the repeater (tower) channel. Sanchez did not know if all 5 stations are recorded simultaneously. Fabens radio transmission document (DEF RAMOS EX 2).

292 – Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila had an appointment to have the bullet removed in Mexico but C. Sanchez convinced him not to in order to preserve evidence.

292-294 – Bench conference regarding testimony concerning the immunity agreement granted to Aldrete-Davila. The Court refused to let defense counsel question Sanchez regarding marijuana smuggling as the reason why Aldrete-Davila did not want to go to the US and needed an immunity agreement.

294 – Aldrete-Davila told C. Sanchez that he was shot, knocked down, and bleeding. Sanchez looked for blood at the scene but did not find any.

295 – C. Sanchez did not look for casings in the drainage ditch and the sector evidence team could not use a metal detector in deep water.

295-296 – Aldrete-Davila immunity agreement (DEF RAMOS EX 2) – not admitted because the exhibit is a copy, but C. Sanchez identified it as a copy of the agreement he took to his meeting with Aldrete-Davila in Ciudad Juarez. Aldrete-Davila was accompanied by his wife, his sister Gladys Davila, and his mother Macaria Davila. Aldrete-Davila had told Sanchez he would bring a lawyer but he did not.

297 – C. Sanchez did not have authority to arrest in Ciudad Juarez.

297 – The immunity agreement gives “limited use” immunity, which C. Sanchez understood to mean anything Aldrete-Davila told Sanchez could not be used against him. The agreement was translated for Aldrete-Davila by a translator at the American Consulate.

299 – What C. Sanchez told Aldrete-Davila about the immunity agreement:

“Q. Okay. You’ve had a chance to look at that immunity agreement?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. And, Agent Sanchez, am I correct that it does not say that he has full immunity from any criminal offense on February 17, 2005?

A. It doesn’t look like it, no, ma’am.

Q. Okay. But is that what you explained to Mr. Aldrete-Davila?

A. I explained that he would not be prosecuted for any – any statements that he gave while we were at the American consulate. And that’s my understanding of what I told him.”

300-301 – Discussion regarding C. Sanchez memo (DEF RAMOS EX 4) and that the immunity granted orally was broader than the immunity in the agreement :

“Q. Okay. Now, would you agree with me, upon reviewing your memo, that you did, in fact, tell him that he wasn’t going to be prosecuted at all for the criminal offense that he made — for a criminal offense he may have committed that day?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. And that is a bigger immunity, a broader immunity, than what’s in that written document, Defendant’s Exhibit Number 2, correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. Okay. But I think you said that you told him that, because that’s what the Assistant U.S. Attorney instructed you to tell him, correct?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. So you have some sort of, I guess oral agreement, that he’s not going to be prosecuted for whatever criminal offense he may have committed on February 17, 2005, correct?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. And Mr. Aldrete-Davila would not speak to you until he had that promise from you, correct?

A. That’s correct.”

302 – R. Sanchez did not tell C. Sanchez the clinic in Mexico where Aldrete-Davila was treated, and Aldrete-Davila would not tell him where he was treated.

302-303 – C. Sanchez has not been a BP agent. His knowledge of BP rules on weapons discharge comes from reading the rules. He does not know the administrative penalty for failing to report the discharge a firearm. Based on a review of the regulations (DEF RAMOS EX 5), the punishment for a first offense is a written reprimand to 5 days suspension.

Compean cross-ex:

307 – C. Sanchez prepared many reports in this case. He did not make a report regarding his search for casings.

308 – The rules require any BP agent who discharges or observes the discharge of a weapon to report it. There were more than 10 agents at the scene on February 17, 2005, but no one reported a discharge.

309 – Objection to question regarding C. Sanchez’ knowledge of other BP unreported weapon discharges. Bench conference discussion at 309-313.

315-324 – Court in recess and jury dismissed for the day. Further discussion regarding questions regarding discharge of weapons and failure to report discharge of weapons.

[End of Vol VI]

UPDATE: This witness’s testimony is continued here.

63 Responses to “DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — Volume VI (Rene Sanchez and Chris Sanchez Testimony)”

  1. Something is not right here…

    The guys could not identify the agents he was wrestling with? And that physical description is about 9/10ths of East LA.

    FOrensic evidence is forensic evidence, however.

    MunDane (1b070b)

  2. I would like to know if it is SOP for a U.S. attorney’s officer to give broader immunity that is written. Christoper Sanchez admits that he orally gave broader immunity to Davila than what was originally given on the immunity agreement.

    Second, why would evidence [the bullet removed from Davila] not be processed by SOP. Why was it given to an agent (Christoper Sanchez) when handling that bullet could destroy DNA evidence? And isn’t it SOP to give that evidence to the FBI, not to the Texas state lab? Is not evidence tainted evidence lost?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  3. It is routine procedure for medical personnel to hand over a bullet to law enforcement. It’s for chain of custody purposes.

    DNA evidence? Davilla’s DNA? What for? There’s no dispute the bullet came Davilla.

    This is real life, not Law and Order, not CSI.

    lc (a21bb2)

  4. 297: the document (immunity agreement) presented by Christopher Sanchez was translated for Aldete-Davila by a tranlator at the American Counsulat.

    What was the necessity of that? On page 77 of Vol.8, Davila admits that he spoke with Christoper Sanchez in Spanish. If DHS Sanchez speaks Spanish, why would he need a translator at the American Counsulate?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  5. I am not arguing that it is not routine to hand over evidence to a member of law enforcement. What I am question is the handling of that evidence. It was apparently given to one person, with no checks, to maintain it’s credibility. There is a standard way to handle evidence. Giving it to one person, without security that the evidence will remain pristine, is hardly the proper way to handle evidence.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  6. What I am asking is; is it standard procedure to give evidence [the bullet] to a law enforcement officer who is in the company of the prime witness in a case?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  7. What was the necessity of that? On page 77 of Vol.8, Davila admits that he spoke with Christoper Sanchez in Spanish. If DHS Sanchez speaks Spanish, why would he need a translator at the American Counsulate?

    Comment by retire05

    So that the government could later say that Davila shouldn’t be held to the words on the paper because the translator wasn’t “official”. Which the prosecution actually argued at one point during the trial.

    It would be more complicated for the government if someone ( C.Sanchez ) actually had to answer for the translation on the witness stand.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  8. What prime witness? You mean Davila? Well, he had to be there, obviously.

    The bullet is given to law enforcement. They take it back to their headquarters, where it’s logged in, etc.

    And I think you’re propping up a strawman so you can knock him down. DNA on the bullet really isn’t important evidence in this case. It’s not Agent Ramos’ defense that he never fired his gun that day. He admits it he fired his weapon, doesn’t he?

    lc (a21bb2)

  9. lc, DNA on evidence is everything. Not only would it prove that the bullet was actually the one from Davila’s leg, it could also disprove that it was the bullet. The destruction of that DNA evidence could also eliminate that bullet from being evidence IF the prosecution can prove that evidence was mishandled. [think about the O.J. case where evidence was mishandled and had to be discounted]
    Yes, both agents admitted their fired their weapons that day.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  10. You don’t get DNA evidence from bullets, you don’t get fingerprint evidence from bullets. You just don’t. I don’t believe the technology is there.

    And even if it was, you don’t spend a fortune on science for undisputed evidence. Agent Ramos admitted he discharged his weapon. I understand his lawyer stipulated the bullet came from his gun. If the defense thought there were fancy DNA tests that would exonerate her client, she should have, and probably would have, asked for them.

    lc (a21bb2)

  11. Retire05,

    DNA isn’t the issue – chain of custody is. First, OIG agent C. Sanchez testified that he saw the bullet taken from Aldrete-Davila’s thigh (he was in the operating room) and hand-carried it to the Texas DPS crime lab. This is competent chain of custody testimony and it is required in court proceedings. If the government did it any other way the bullet evidence probably would not have been admissible.

    Second, I doubt the doctors just handed the bullet to Sanchez and he carried it around loose in his pocket. I think it very likely that the bullet was bagged by the doctors, carried in the bag by Sanchez, and handled by the DPS crime lab according to standard lab protocol. Any DNA testing that needed to be done – and apparently no one asked for it in this case – could have been done then and probably still could be done.

    As for why the bullet was given to the DPS rather than the FBI, I have no idea. My guess is the reason was time. C. Sanchez testified that they still didn’t know who the shooter(s) were on March 18 because they didn’t have a match on the bullet/gun. Ramos’ gun wasn’t tested until it was confiscated on March 18, and I think he was arrested at the time his gun was taken. The government probably wanted the testing done as soon as possible. I suspect the agents could hand-deliver the gun to the DPS but they would have to overnight the gun to an FBI lab, and that would take longer.

    DRJ (605076)

  12. lc, you are trying to tell me that there would have been no DNA on the bullet removed from Davila? Do you think that bullet came out clean as a whistle? No blood, no tissue residue? You’re dreaming, man.

    DRJ, I read that the DPS lab admitted that they had NEVER before received evidence in a federal case. But this bullet was sent there. One day for transport to the FBI lab would not have made a difference, now would it? The bullet, when removed, could have been sent to FBI to await the weapons for a match. It wasn’t. Why would DHS break tradition (sending evidence to Quantico) in this case?
    Was the bullet in a sealed evidence envelope that would show if it had been tampered with? Was the bullet sent to DPS ballistics prior to the receipt of Compean and Ramos’s service weapson? Both agents admit to firing. Did the DPS testify that the bullet was in a tamper proof envelope upon receipt? Did the DPS testify that the bullet could be ruled to have come from Ramos’ weapon or a weapon of the type that the agents carried?
    How was the DNA THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENT DUE TO BLOOD AND TISSUE RESIDUE destroyed?

    [This is a ridiculous diversion, and it cuts into your credibility, retire05. Remember when you said that the jury never heard Aldrete had received immunity, and I said I didn’t believe it? That was a good example of a nutty pro-agent theory of yours that made no sense, but which you blindly accepted anyway. The transcripts have proven me right on that issue — something you haven’t bothered to acknowledge. As for your current distraction, there was no dispute at trial that the bullet came from the agent’s gun, from everything I’ve read. Am I wrong about that?

    If you picked narrow, sensible issues to raise questions about, you’d have more credibility. Instead you raise red herrings like this, and you are very, very slow to admit when you’re wrong, as shown by the immunity issue. — P]

    retire05 (8536d6)

  13. DRJ:

    Who said the DNA was destroyed? I didn’t. Nobody did.

    Is there a dispute that this bullet came from Davila? No. That’s the only reason the DNA would have been tested. And that’s a test that, most likely, would have been requested by the defense.

    You’re getting lost in trivialities, man.

    lc (a21bb2)

  14. Those border patrol agents should not only receive pardons but be allowed to sue the federal agentcies that sent them to prison and those thugs who behat one should be fully prosicuted and giving life in prison and they shoul also be allowed to sue the mexican goverment as well

    krazy kagu (8d6a8f)

  15. LC,

    Did you intend your last comment (#13) for me or for Retire05?

    DRJ (605076)

  16. Patterico, I believe that after our last sparing session I agreed to wait until the transcripts came out. Is that not correct?
    Now, if you would care to clarify what type of immunity was given Davila, I would be interested in reading it. You have already discussed that Sutton was wrong on one of his talking points. So why this animosity toward me? Hell,man, you don’t even know me.
    If I am reading things correctly, it seems that Davila was given more than “use” immunity.
    Is it not fair of me to question the handling of evidence? Are we to just assume that prosecutors in this case whould withhold information that would discredit evidence? Do you not find that if there is a lack of DNA evidence from the bullet that it would be pertinent to ask how it was destroyed? Or would you just perfer to stack the deck in favor of Sutton’s office?
    If I have time, I will try to find testimony on the evidence of the bullet. Perhaps that will answer my questions.
    Until then, I would appreciate some indication that you hold your readers in as much respect as you want them to hold you.

    [All I am trying to say is that you’d make your points more effectively if you admitted when you’re wrong, and focused on issues that matter. The DNA thing appears to me to be a total red herring. The defense stipulated that the guy was shot from a bullet from one of the defendants’ guns — apparently because ballistics evidence proved it. A federal official saw the bullet removed from Aldrete. What more could DNA possibly establish? Answer: nothing that was in serious dispute to begin with. If you think otherwise, I respectfully submit that you’re in OJ territory here.

    DRJ has a good suggestion: read the transcripts. DRJ is doing a great job of walking us through them, which I appreciate very much. — P]

    retire05 (8536d6)

  17. Retire05,

    You have sincere concerns about this case. Why don’t you put your concerns to good use and read the complete transcript? We could have a much better discussion if we based it on facts rather than raw emotion.

    DRJ (605076)

  18. DRJ

    I meant Retire05.

    DRJ, I apologize. Your comments have been articulate and sensible, and I shouldn’t have made such an error.

    lc (a21bb2)

  19. LC,

    It’s not a problem – all these initials are very confusing and I think it’s easy to forget who said what. I just wanted a clarification since I wasn’t sure how to respond.

    DRJ (605076)

  20. What I’ve seen so far about the bullet has been a stipulation read into the record–not evidence or testimony about it.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  21. Retire05,

    I can’t answer for Patterico, but, please understand, it’s not a matter of having animosity against you.

    This not having DNA testimony on the bullet is not a Johnny Sutton dirty trick. No prosecutor would waste time and resources on that kind of evidence when you have chain-of-custody evidence — not unless he had a secret death wish, because the jurors would probably put out a hit on him. You just don’t waste jurors’ time with testimony about the obvious.

    lc (a21bb2)

  22. There is one thing that is extremely relevant about the bullet though. Compean and Ramos were both firing .40 caliber Berretas ( 283 5-7 ) so how did they determine that the bullet came from Ramos and not Compean?

    Is there evidence that this shattered bullet was matched specifically to the Ramos weapon by some kind of groove matchup that didn’t match the Compean weapon? I haven’t seen that evidence, only that the bullet could have come from a .40 caliber berreta.

    Compean shot something like 15 rounds and Ramos shot once. How could Compean know that he didn’t hit the smuggler if he was aiming at him? He said he was shooting to kill.

    I suspect that Ramos was told that it was his weapon, so he said “okay”.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  23. 235-236 – R. Sanchez used BPETS (a BP computer program) to locate any BP shootings in February 2005 or any report regarding Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. There were no results.

    Consider what would have happened if the agents had reported the shooting and everything checked out and it was offically called a “good shoot”.

    Creepy R.Sanchez would have found out who the agents were, relayed the information to his smuggler buddy Davila and the associates who wanted to shoot border guards would have had a name or names.

    Ramos and Compean know the culture.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  24. J Curtis,

    I haven’t read that part of the transcript but I believe Agent Ramos stipulated (agreed) that the bullet fragments came from his gun. I can’t imagine his attorneys would let him do that unless the ballistics report clearly linked the bullet fragments to his gun.

    DRJ (8b9d41)

  25. lc, while you may think that THE bullet is the obvious, I think that, considering other factors of this case and the history of the U.S. attoney’s office in such matters, the DNA evidence would have been pertinent. The DNA presentation would have have to be dissertation length, just a simple lab result admitted as evidence of proof that this was in fact THE bullet that was removed from Davila. And I really don’t care what the temperature of the jury would have been over such testimony. The jury is there to hear ALL the testimony. That is their job and if we are goint to start being selective on what is presented to a jury, I hope you are the first one on trial under those rules.

    J. Curtis; I suspect you are right that Ramos accepted that the bullet came from his weapon.

    The bullet is not the only problem I have. I have a major problem with Davila’s testimony that he was unaware of the name of the Mexican clinic that treated him, both initially and on repeat visits, because it was all handled by his sister. And am I correct that Davila said that he was unaware of the U.S. lawyer suing the government for $5 mil and that he learned of it in the newspaper just a few days before his testimony. He also said that it was Rene Sanchez and Sanchez’s MIL who said that he could recoup his Mexican medical bills by suing and that he went to a Mexican facility becuase it was more convenient and less painful that going to the one in the states. So are we to believe that Davila uses a Mexican medical facility for follow up treatment but doesn’t know the name of it?
    Sorry if I seem a bit reluctant to take the testimony of a professed drug dealer. They just don’t seem to be on the top rung of credible people.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  26. Aldrete-Davila also claimed in his testimony that he didn’t know what kind of drugs he was driving across the border. Is it credible testimony that he either couldn’t smell 700 pounds of marijuana inside a van with him–or that he didn’t know what it smells like?

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  27. I have read the transcript of the testimony of Aldrete-Davila (the man who was shot), Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos (the convicted agents). My take (starting with a bias that people convicted by a jury are usually guilty) is that the agents would have been wise to take a plea for minimal (or no) jail time if one was offered. The shoot was probably bad and their failure to report it properly made their defense very difficult.

    Aldrete-Davila told a straightforward plausible story and he was not shaken on cross. The agent’s stories had some implausible aspects, the cross was more effective and there were some points regarding the agents failure to follow proper procedures that they simply had no defense on.

    From the Ramos cross (vol 13 p. 82):

    3 Q. And you didn’t tell either of them, according to the
    4 policy, that you discharged your firearm?
    5 A. No.

    and also:

    14 Q. And the reason you didn’t report it is because you knew it
    15 wasn’t a good shoot?
    16 A. No. I just messed up.

    and on p. 89:

    13 Q. You hit him in the buttocks, right?
    14 A. Yes, ma’am.
    15 Q. And it severed his urethra?
    16 A. Apparently.
    17 Q. And there’s no way anybody can really tell whether he will
    18 ever have his urinary function back, correct?
    19 A. That’s what the doctor said.

    and on p. 10:

    10 Q. Okay. So it’s going to be your testimony today that the
    11 Fabens Border Patrol station is different than all other Border
    12 Patrol stations. Is that correct?
    13 A. We work things differently there.
    14 Q. What other stations have you worked in?
    15 A. Just Fabens.
    16 Q. So how do you know it’s different than other stations?
    17 A. Speaking with other agents from other stations.
    18 Q. Okay. So, based on what other agents have told you, Fabens
    19 doesn’t follow the rules, but other stations do?
    20 A. Just an interpretation, I guess.

    From the Compean cross (vol 14 p. 12):

    5 Q. Okay. And what is the firearms policy?
    6 A. It’s the manual, I guess, or…
    7 Q. And, in there, it tells you about any time there’s a
    8 reportable shooting you have to report it within an hour, and
    9 all those things, correct?
    10 A. Correct.
    11 Q. So every time you qualify you go through that — those set
    12 of directions and instructions?
    13 A. Yes.
    14 Q. And so you’ve heard it at least 15 times, is it fair to
    15 say —
    16 A. Yeah.
    17 Q. — that you have to report a shooting within one hour,
    18 correct?
    19 A. Yes.

    and on p. 66:

    14 Q. So he jumps out, starts running, and the van is still going
    15 30 miles an hour 10 to 15 feet away from the edge of the ditch,
    16 right?
    17 A. It must have been. By then, I was looking at him. I — I
    18 kept — I took my eye off of the van.
    19 Q. And yet the van, with 10 to 15 feet of distance, manages to
    20 stop. That’s what you saw, correct?
    21 A. Yes, sir. Down here — there used to be, before the van
    22 came down here, there was a little — almost — not a ramp, but
    23 there was a — there was dirt — a little bit of dirt up here.

    and on p. 169:

    6 Q. Now, let me show you Government’s Exhibit 75. Do you
    7 recognize that? Is this part of your firearms policy manual?
    8 A. Yes, sir.
    9 Q. And I’m referring you to page 21 of 64, Number 2 on that
    10 page. Doesn’t it tell you that you’re required to report a
    11 shooting within one hour?
    12 A. Yes, sir.
    13 Q. And you knew that it was your responsibility, correct?
    14 A. Yes, sir.
    15 Q. And you didn’t do that, did you?
    16 A. No, sir.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  28. 26

    Aldrete-Davila didn’t drive the van across the border. It appears an empty van was left near the border, the marijuana was hauled across the border and loaded in the van and then it was Aldrete-Davila’s job to drive the van away from the border. He testified he was to be paid $1000-1500 for this.

    Aldrete-Davila’s claim he didn’t know the van contained marijuana was one of the more doubtful parts of his story. On the other hand he repeatedly admitted he knew it contained drugs possibly marijuana, cocaine or heroin. I don’t see the advantage to lying about this if he knew it was marijuana.

    It appears Aldrete-Davila’s role in the smuggling was the riskiest (from the point of view of getting caught). So it makes sense for the drug gang to use someone relatively clueless and tell them as little as possible. Aldrete-Davila did come across as reasonably intelligent in his testimony.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  29. Retire05,

    The jury did listen to all the testimony. They deliberated and convicted these two.

    There are people on death row who were convicted on less evidence than was presented against these two guys.

    lc (1401be)

  30. The best thing about this case is also the saddest. It reveals how suspicious the people are of their government in light of its obvious and blatant dereliction of duty. It really is much more believeable to me that the Feds railroaded two good agents to the benefit of a drug dealer than it is for me to think these two really were so off the mark as to deserve prosecution.

    George Bush has self-inflicted every wound his approval ratings have suffered. I can’t beleive I was stupid enough to vote for him a second time.

    John McCain, David Dreier and the rest of the lot ought to pay attention. It will be a long time before I vote for someone just because they have an R next to their name.

    RCJP (7e1ac4)

  31. And any trial lawyer, criminal or civil, who doesn’t at least try gauge the “temperature” of the jury does so at his or her peril. You don’t volunteer for jury duty; you’re drafted.

    Prosecutors present a case, hoping to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys try to raise reasonable doubt. It’s not necessary, or feasible even, to present every possible factoid. The criminal justice system would grind to a halt if trials were presented the way you want them.

    lc (1401be)

  32. I haven’t read that part of the transcript but I believe Agent Ramos stipulated (agreed) that the bullet fragments came from his gun. I can’t imagine his attorneys would let him do that unless the ballistics report clearly linked the bullet fragments to his gun.

    Comment by DRJ

    I was making a logical point. I thought I made myself clear. How can Ramos say with 100% certainty that it his gun and Compean say with 100% certainty that it isn’t his gun?

    And as I theorized in a different thread, it’s because Compean was shooting to miss and Ramos, hearing the shots and assuming a gun fight, came upon the scene and shot center mass.

    They discussed the matter and decided their best defense was to say the smuggler had a gun. The tragedy of errors version was guaranteed to land them in jail where the “thought he had a gun” version gave them a chance.

    Either way, it shows more deception by the government. They had no proof that it was Ramos’s weapon unless they matched the grooves and I haven’t seen evidence that they did that.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  33. No defense attorney would have stipulated that it was his gun unless he/she had already had a firearms report. Do you think this stipultion was just pulled from the air?

    DRJ, can you help me here? What did the stip say?

    lc (1401be)

  34. lc, you say there are people on death row for less evidence than was presented against these two Border Patrol agents. I would ask you, what is the evidence that is getting innocent people off death row and released from prison. It is DNA evidence that is making this possible. It is also DNA evidence that is helping convict people.

    Do you really think that a U.S. attorney is above withholding evidence in a high profile trial? Then you need to research the appelate court’s recent overturn of the guilty verdict of another BP agent, David Sipes. The U.S. attorney withheld evidence that would have exonerated the BP agent at the first trial. He was tried by the neighboring district to Sutton, in Brownsville, I believe.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  35. Retire05,

    And the cases of inmates being exonerated by DNA that you speak of are where identification was a factor.

    There was no question of identification here. Ramos’ and Compean’s own colleagues testified they (Ramos and Compean) shot at Davila.

    And I doubt we would be having this discussion if they had just reported the shooting in the first place and cleaned up the scene. They could have told any old lie about the suspect having a gun, and that would be that. They didn’t want to do the paperwork? That’s a stupid excuse. They get paid all day. What difference would it make if they’re doing their patrol duties or sitting at a desk, doing their reports.

    lc (1401be)

  36. lc,

    Perhaps this will help.

    The complaint against Ramos and Compean says Ramos had a 96D Beretta 40-caliber automatic pistol, serial number BER067069M, which fired a 40-caliber Smith & Wesson jacketed hollow point bullet into the left buttocks of Aldrete.

    But the ballistics report states: “The copper-jacketed bullet was fired from a barrel having six lands and grooves inclined to the right. The manufacturer of the firearm that fired the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown, but could include commonly encountered models of 40 S&W (Smith & Wesson) caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols.”

    Meaning, while the report did not rule out the possibility that Ramos gun could have fired that particular bullet, it did not conclusively say it did.

    Unless there was a followup report that I haven’t seen, and hasn’t been reported anywhere, that specifically matches the Ramos weapon with the bullet fragment, my argument stands.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  37. And I doubt we would be having this discussion if they had just reported the shooting in the first place and cleaned up the scene. They could have told any old lie about the suspect having a gun, and that would be that.

    Comment by lc

    Would you agree that had they done that their names would have come up on the BPETS software?

    Would you agree that Rene Sanchez would have found their names on that software and relayed the information to his good friend the drug smuggler?

    Would you agree that Davila had friends that wanted to shoot some border agents after he was shot and would you agree that Compean’s and Ramos’s lives and families’ lives would have been put in danger had they reported the incident?

    Do you think the agents didn’t realize the dangerous implications of reporting the incident?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  38. Well, I guess his lawyer shouldn’t have stipulated it came from his gun, should she? She should have made the government put the ballistics expert on the stand and cross-examined him. Why didn’t she?

    I didn’t realize filling out reports was such hazardous duty. Maybe these two law-enforcement heroes should have been stocking shelves at the Wal-Mart instead.

    lc (1401be)

  39. Did Davila spend the night at Sanchez’s, with the bullet there? What lines in the transcript deal with Davila spending the night with Sanchez?

    Oh man this relationship with Mexican drug smugglers is ridiculous.
    R. Sanchez received a phone call from his mother-in-law (Gregoria Toquinto) in late Feb/early March 2005 advising that her “friend’s son had been shot by a BP agent.”

    Wesson (c20d28)

  40. I didn’t realize filling out reports was such hazardous duty. Maybe these two law-enforcement heroes should have been stocking shelves at the Wal-Mart instead.

    Comment by lc

    If you read the transcripts, you’ll understand that I’m not overdramatizing the situation.

    R.Sanchez was using the BPETS software to find the name of the shooter for one reason and one reason only: to give Davila the shooter’s name.

    Understand that these two were at least willing to attempt an arrest on the suspect. The rest of them wanted no part of it. I don’t believe they are cowards for not wanting to endanger their families’ lives unnecessarily.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  41. James B. Shearer,

    I read things a little differently. For instance, I read Aldrete-Davila’s admission that he took a step towards Compean and Compean’s description of how Aldrete-Davila kept coming toward him (during cross) and thought all this was very compatible with Compean thinking Aldrete-Davila was going to come after the shotgun or tackle him. Compean is only 5’4 , after all. Aldrete-Davila said in his testimony that he didn’think that the agents would be allowed to shoot him if he just kept going–is it possible that he think that he wouldn’t be shot if he just kept going towards Compean without a weapon drawn?

    I don’t know. When I see how nitpicking the cross is about things that I don’t think that I could have remembered given the circumstances–I’m bothered. The points that the prosecution made seem like hindsight to me.

    Also, expecting him to know exactly where Ramos was during all this when his focus was on the guy he thought was a threat seems ridiculous. Maybe this boils down to preparation. Maybe he thought he HAD to remember things or know things that were impossible for him to remember or know.

    I think that I would have prepped him to focus on the important things like his perceptions of what was happening and told him not to guess about exact distances or where Ramos was located and when. I would have had him testify (assuming it was the truth) that his focus was completely on Aldrete-Davila and that made it impossible for him to know the specifics about other things going on at the time.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  42. Maybe I’m slow but I can’t figure out what you all are arguing about with regards to the bullet.

    The smuggler had a bullet in him. Either it came from one of the two agents who were shooting at him or he was shot by someone else. Since the agents admitted shooting at the smuggler, if the smuggler was shot by someone else, that would reduce the severity of the charges, but not totally exonerate the agents.

    Since a number of you seem intent on having the agents go free (some of you think they should be given medals), are you going to go so far as to suggest that the smuggler was shot by someone else and, perhaps to gain some traction for his soon-to-be-filed lawsuit, claimed that he was shot by the agents?

    If not, then what is all the fuss about ballistics and stipulations and DNA and the like?

    steve sturm (d3e296)

  43. Personally, I see no strategic advantage to stipulating to opinion evidence. It serves no purpose other than, knowing you have a lost case, sucking up to the judge for a lesser “trial penalty”.

    nk (4cd0c2)

  44. 41

    Aldrete-Davila and Compean agreed that Aldrete-Davila got by Compean without any contact (and continued running towards Mexico) after Compean made some motion towards Aldrete-Davila with his shotgun. This seemed to me to be what was important in reference to whether the shooting was justified.

    I don’t really see how it is nitpicking for the prosecution to hammer on the fact that the agents both admitted that they knew they were supposed to report the shooting and didn’t. This is going to look bad to a jury, there is no way around it.

    There were numerous problems with Compean’s testimony. While some of them might have been arguably minor (nitpicking) the cumulative effect was not good (at least in my opinion).

    I find it difficult to come up with a plausible scenario in which the agents were completely innocent which is why I think they would have been wise to take a plea.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  45. NK,

    I readily admit that criminal law is not my area, but I know defense counsel who routinely stipulate on ballistics matters if there is no firm basis to dispute the report. First, the testimony is boring and juries blame the defense when they dispute something that comes across as a slam dunk for the prosecution.

    Second, it enhances the prosecution’s case to put on clear-cut ballistics’ evidence and offering a Texas DPS crime lab expert impresses most Texas jurors. They are professional and remind Texans that they are related to the Texas Rangers – probably our state’s most respected law enforcement members.

    Third, and last, the DPS has a forensic firearms service in El Paso, so the prosecution might have put one of the jurors’ neighbors on the stand. Thus, I’m not overly surprised that the defense chose to stipulate to this fact.

    DRJ (605076)

  46. James B.,

    Based on the opening statements, both Compean and Ramos claimed that Aldrete-Davila was running away but turned with something shiny in his hand they thought might be a gun. Apparently the jury didn’t find their claims convincing but it is relevant to whether the shooting was justified.

    DRJ (605076)

  47. 43

    I would think there is an advantage to conceding points where the evidence is overwhelmingly against you, the better to focus the jury’s attention on the weak points of the prosecution case.

    In this case I think it would be difficult to simultaneously argue that the defendants didn’t shoot the victim but if they did they were justified.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  48. Good point, James B. Shearer.

    DRJ (605076)

  49. 46

    Sure, but what does that have to do with the first paragraph in 41. Aldrete-Davila “admitted” that he was moving towards Compean before he got past him not that he had anything that could be mistaken for a gun.

    If Compean didn’t try to hit Aldrete-Davila with his shotgun while knowing Aldrete-Davila was trying to surrender this means Compean’s conduct was a bit better than alleged by the prosecution but would not mean (or even strongly imply) that the shooting (the major charge)was justified.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  50. Yes, we have that “confession”. Nonetheless, do you remember the O.J. Simpson case? Eighteen hours of O.J. dancing around, that the jury had to sit and watch? When you don’t have the burden of proof, a bored, confused and distracted jury is a good thing. And $%^&^&* with the plaintiff’s case, in any way you can, is also a good thing.

    nk (50d578)

  51. James B.,

    I haven’t read the testimony you are discussing. However, I don’t see anything inconsistent with the defense claim that the Ramos and Compean were justified in shooting at Aldrete-Davila as he was running away if they thought he had a weapon and might be about to use it. You can be just as injured by a gunshot from someone running away as from someone running toward you. If this wasn’t your point, I apologize.

    I also believe the defense disputes that Aldrete-Davila was trying to surrender.

    DRJ (605076)

  52. NK,

    Bored juries aren’t good in Texas. They don’t like to have their time wasted and tend to punish the ones that waste it.

    DRJ (605076)

  53. Bored juries aren’t good in Texas…

    A point I made in another thread. BOY it yanks me for a lawyer to waste my time while I’m getting the square ass in a courtroom away from my normal life.

    FWIW it isn’t difficult for me to imagine a scenario where Ramos knows it was his bullet.

    I’m not sure what all the smoke in this thread about DNA is supposed to be about. There is no identification issue here. Ramos attorney stipulated it was his bullet. Unless, of course, in addition to a dirty judge, corrupt us attys, obstruction by a sitting president, lying supervisors, witness tampering and FBI agents manipulating evidence we’re going to add a couple of crooked defense attys to the conspiracy against these guys.

    Dwilkers (4f4ebf)

  54. Dwilkers,

    That’s what will come down the line, after these convictions are upheld on appeal, the post-trial “ineffective assistance of counsel” motions.

    lc (1401be)

  55. My #43 and #50 were out of line because I don’t know what trial prep the defense team did. They may have interviewed the government’s expert and found his opinion unshakeable or their own expert may have confirmed the match, so they chose to “go huntin’ whar the ducks are”.

    You’re doing great, DRJ. I’ll try to keep my asides to a minimum. Maybe Patterico will start a thread where attorneys can offer their opinions on trial strategy. Although he seemed surprised that this is considered a law blog. 😉

    nk (f58916)

  56. James B. Shearer said in 44:

    “Aldrete-Davila and Compean agreed that Aldrete-Davila got by Compean without any contact (and continued running towards Mexico) after Compean made some motion towards Aldrete-Davila with his shotgun. This seemed to me to be what was important in reference to whether the shooting was justified.”

    But Compean says he continued chasing him and attempting to catch him. Are you saying that the shooting was unjustified because the BP agent continued pursuit of a man they suspected of smuggling drugs?

    I thought that Compean was very firm in his testimony that Adrete-Davila kept coming at him–causing Compean to use his shotgun like a baton to push him back (In fact Juarez confirmed in his testimony that they are trained to use shotguns like batons for when it is necessary) Aldrete admitted to taking at least one step toward Compean after he was told to stop.

    Compean was very firm that he thought he saw a gun in Aldrete-Davila’s hand. He has never waivered on that point. The only missteps I saw in his testimony involved not being sure of what foot he took a step with, not being consistent with Ramos as to where Ramos was located and when and similar confusions. Things that would understandably be confused when one is eye-ball to eye-ball with a suspect that seems to be uncommitted to obeying commands and then possibly pointing a gun at you.

    Moreover, under cross of Aldrete-Davila, he made it clear that he thought that he could get away without being shot–because the ROE would not allow the agents to shoot him to stop him. That tells me that he was out there pushing the envelope and doing everything he could to evade arrest. Isn’t it reasonable for the agents to perceive that a suspect behaving in this manner could pose a threat to their lives and to be reactive to that?

    If the shoot is bad because Compean continued to pursue instead of letting him go, we might as well not let our LEO’s pursue anybody lest the suspect be perceived to point a weapon thereby causing the suspect to be shot and the officers to be prosecuted.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  57. Jerri Lynn, how would Davila know that BP agents are discouraged from pursuit or using excessive measures such as shooting him?
    Also, I have read that the prosecution made a point of the speed at which Davila was traveling in the van and the fact that the agents were in “hot” persuit. According to one of BP local’s web site, BP agents are NOT allowed to persue traveling past the speed limit without a supervisor’s permission. The questioning of the prosecution would lend credance to that.
    Have you read my comments on R. Sanchez’s testimony?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  58. Retire05, that’s a very good question. I don’t remember Aldrete-Davila testifying as to what he thought the rules were with regard to the vehicle pursuit, but he definitely talked about making decisions to continue evasion based on his belief that the agents couldn’t shoot him to stop him.

    Can you please direct me to your comments on R.Sanchez? I’m getting confused between the different posts and threads.

    I haven’t gotten to R. Sanchez’s testimony. My next step was to read the closing argument of the prosecution and then to try to track it back to the testimony.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  59. NK,

    I think your suggestion is excellent idea. But please don’t limit your comments … if anything, increase them. It’s so time-consuming to summarize these transcripts that I can hardly stand it, and the “real” comments are all that’s keeping me going.

    I wish I could decide how to edit this to a shorter version but I don’t know what to keep and what to discard. I might do a second edit after I’ve read the whole thing. Any ideas you have would be appreciated and, speaking for myself, feel free to do a summary yourself. It’s fascinating and I think it’s important.

    LC,

    Based on what I’ve read so far, there is no basis for a claim of ineffective counsel but I suspect your comment was aimed at what would probably happen, not what should happen. If so, I agree it’s not uncommon for defendants to make such allegations on appeal.

    Does anyone know if the same attorneys are representing the agents on appeal?

    DRJ (605076)

  60. “Does anyone know if the same attorneys are representing the agents on appeal?”

    They have different appellate attorneys. One is located here in Austin.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  61. Jerri Lynn, click on the calendar on the right side of the page to Feb. 15. My post has to do with (Section VI) the testimony of Rene Sanchez (not Christopher Sanchez) and his involvement with the family of Davila.
    I would appreciate your comments on that post. For some reason, Rene Sanchez is not squeeky clean.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  62. DRJ,

    As far as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, I’m guessing what will happen, not what should happen.

    I just stumbled on this site a week ago because there were a lot of ridiculous accusations being made against the court reporter.

    lc (1401be)

  63. I think it would be good to find out where Davila got his information about ROE. R. Sanchez (from conversations before the day of the shooting)? Nooo… it couldn’t be… /sarcasm off

    Let’s see.. you are going to commit a crime where the BP is your opponent, and you grew up with a guy who is now a BP. Hmmm.. maybe you can gain some helpful tips about how the BP operates.

    I know this doesn’t directly impact the guilt or innocence of the agents; but sometimes knowing all the context helps understand everything that was going on at the time, and how to weigh the evidence.

    Ken (245846)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0947 secs.