Patterico's Pontifications

2/16/2007

DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — End of Chris Sanchez’s Testimony (from Volume VII)

Filed under: Crime,General,Immigration — Patterico @ 6:58 am



DRJ has the end of her excellent summation of Chris Sanchez’s testimony below, in the extended entry.

I’m going to try to persuade her to start posting these herself.

Here it is:

Continuation of Testimony, Witness #2 – Christopher Sanchez

Compean re-cross:

3-4 – During his investigation, C. Sanchez learned there were other instances when BP weapons were discharged in the Fabens district but no report was made to supervisory personnel.

4 – When he first started his investigation, C. Sanchez did not know that R. Sanchez had a personal relationship with Aldrete-Davila’s family. He learned about it in a telephone conversation with R. Sanchez on March 10, 2005.

5 – Aldrete-Davila was also worried about prosecution by Mexican authorities.

6 – There are 2 types of radio transmissions in Fabens: Local (car-to-car) and rim-rock or repeater (tower) transmissions. Local transmissions are not recorded. Repeater transmissions are recorded.

6-7 – C. Sanchez began his investigation by reviewing radio transmissions for the Ysleta station on February 17, 2005, between 1-5 PM. He did this based on the information provided by Aldrete-Davila. There was no mention of a shooting in the recordings. On March 11, he reviewed the radio transmissions for the Fabens station and heard transmissions regarding a 10-46 on a van near Fabens. The subject vehicle was identified as a blue van – not a minivan – leaving the 76 area. R. Sanchez’s memo did not mention a blue van.

9-10 – C. Sanchez would have continued to investigate this matter even if Aldrete-Davila had not cooperated. He would have continued to interview the Fabens’ agents.

10 – C. Sanchez met with Aldrete-Davila in Mexico on March 16. He and 2 other agents took an immunity letter, written in English, from the US Attorney’s office. A prosecutor did not accompany them. A translator at the American consulate translated the letter. C. Sanchez speaks Spanish and he believes the translator accurately translated the letter for Aldrete-Davila.

11-18 – [Campeon moved admission of DEF RAMOS EX 2, copy of limited use immunity letter. Government objected. Extended bench conference regarding relevance, admissibility, and applicable rules of evidence. The Court sustained the objection and refused to admit the immunity letter.]

18-19 – C. Sanchez viewed the tracks of the gray van as it traveled down the road and before it hit the ditch. In the photos, it appeared the van went straight down the road and ran into the ditch. [DEF COMPEAN EXS 1 and 2 (2 Photos of tire tracks) admitted.]

20 – C. Sanchez drove on Jess Harris Road in a Mercury Sable to estimate the speed of the vehicles. At speeds over 40 mph, the car kicked up dust and he could not see out of his rearview mirror, so he estimated their speed at more than 40 mph. The van that Aldrete-Davila was driving was heavier than a Mercury Sable.

Government re-direct:

21-22 – C. Sanchez located the van during his investigation. He did not drive it and does not know if the steering works. It was not a new van. It was his understanding that this was the first time Aldrete-Davila had driven the van. The agents that C. Sanchez questioned thought the van and Ramos were going in excess of 65 mph. The road was dirt with potholes and rocks. It was not safe to attempt a turn at the ditch and the van could have easily turned over.

23-24 – C. Sanchez arrested Ramos and Compean. He identified them in the courtroom.

24 – The Fabens district is located in the Western District of Texas.

24 – The only radio transmissions that C. Sanchez listened to were the repeater transmissions. He could not listen to the car-to-car transmissions because they aren’t recorded, but his investigation did not reveal any car-to-car transmissions regarding a shooting. [Defendants objected to this as hearsay but the Court overruled it based on prior re-cross examination (p 7) regarding transmissions about shooting.]

25-28 – C. Sanchez played the repeater tape for February 17, 2005, for all the Fabens BP agents except Agent Arnold, who was out sick that day. He did that to make sure his written transcript was accurate and he made corrections after that review.

28-29 – C. Sanchez interviewed Compean once and Compean provided 2 statements that enabled Sanchez to determine Compean was the agent who called in the 10-46 on the blue van.

29 – C. Sanchez explained to Aldrete-Davila that the immunity agreement required him to tell the truth. If he learns a witness with immunity has lied, he must bring that to the attention of the US Attorney’s office.

30 – C. Sanchez has no investigative authority in Mexico and no ability to investigate the Mexican medical clinic that treated Aldrete-Davila.

30-31 – C. Sanchez learned about another weapon discharge in Fabens that was not reported. It involved a snake, not a human.

31 – C. Sanchez learned of R. Sanchez’s personal knowledge of the Aldrete-Davila family on March 10. It did not change his investigation but it made him more cautious.

[End of Government re-direct.]

31-36 – [Bench conference regarding if the Government opened the door to questions concerning whether Aldrete-Davila lied in his discussions with C. Sanchez. Counsel stated that Aldrete-Davila told Sanchez that he was a mule hired in February 2005 for the first time to bring marijuana across the border. He was apparently also caught drug smuggling in October 2005. Defense counsel argued that when the government asked C. Sanchez whether the immunity agreement required that Aldrete-Davila be truthful, it opened the door to allow the defense to examine C. Sanchez regarding the scope of Aldrete-Davila’s immunity. The Court disagreed:

“MS. STILLINGER: It goes to the scope of his immunity, which I guess this would be the proper time to ask the Government. The Government represented to us last week that they haven’t given him immunity for the October load, but they don’t think they have sufficient evidence to think he committed a criminal offense in October, which I think is ridiculous, based on the evidence. And I think we ought to be able to investigate.

THE COURT: It’s not relevant to this offense. It has no relevance. And so at this time, I don’t think the door is opened, and I will not allow it. Okay?]

36-38 – [Bench conference regarding if the Government opened the door to questions concerning the marijuana in Aldrete-Davila’s van on February 17, 2005, because an additional 700 pounds of marijuana would affect how the van performed on a dirt road at 65 mph. The government claimed the defense opened the door with questions about the direction the van drove. The defense countered that it did not raise the issue of the van’s performance. The Court ruled that the defense could ask what “area 76” means [apparently in reference to Compean’s original call of a 10-46 in area 76]. After a recess, the government added that the defense opened the door by asking about the weight of the vehicles. The Court ruled that the questions were not admissible at that time.]

Ramos re-cross:

38-39 – C. Sanchez does not know how BP agents change from unrecorded local (car-to-car) to recorded repeater radio transmissions.

39 – If Aldrete-Davila lied to C. Sanchez or other agents of the government, Sanchez would notify the US Attorney’s office and they would decide if the immunity agreement was “off” and Aldrete-Davila could be prosecuted.

40-42 – The proffer letters given to the BP agents are a form of immunity: “Whatever you tell us we won’t use against you, with certain restrictions … “ One of the restrictions is, if the agent lies, the deal is off. C. Sanchez confirmed this by reviewing a proffer agreement [DEF RAMOS EX 6]. This restriction is not in Aldrete-Davila’s immunity agreement:

“BY MS. STILLINGER:

Q. Let me show you what I’ve marked previously as DR Number 2, so you can review that and be sure. There is an agreement that he will testify truthfully, correct?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. And there’s an agreement that if he testified falsely, he could be prosecuted for perjury, correct?

A. Yes, ma’am.

Q. Okay. But there’s not the limitation that the deal is canceled if he lies, right?

A. No, ma’am.”

42-43 – The government provided other benefits to Aldrete-Davila as a result of the immunity agreement, including: Aldrete-Davila did not originally have a visa to enter the US but was given a one-month I-94 border crossing card. [Court overruled the government’s objection that this line of questioning was outside the scope of prior direct and cross.]

43-45 – Also, after the original I-94 expired, C. Sanchez gave Aldrete-Davila another border crossing card, a “temporary parole” for humanitarian reasons, to enable him to cross the border for medical treatment. Rene Sanchez’s MIL brought Aldrete-Davila to the hospital once or twice, and friends brought him other times. Other times C. Sanchez would meet him at the port-of-entry and bring him in. However, with this pass, Aldrete-Davila could enter the US for any reason. He had a pass in March 2005 for 30 days; an I-94 in June for 90 days; another pass in October for this case when it was originally scheduled to come to trial; and then a pass so he could come to this trial.

45-46 – Also, C. Sanchez arranged for Aldrete-Davila to receive medical treatment at William Beaumont, which normally treats only military, dependents, and trauma victims. The US government is paying for his medical treatment.

46-49 – C. Sanchez asked Aldrete-Davila what medical clinic in Mexico he went to and who took him there, but Aldrete-Davila refused to say. [Government objected to these questions as outside the scope but was overruled.] Aldrete-Davila’s immunity agreement required that he cooperate and that he could not protect any person or entity. C. Sanchez acknowledged that Aldrete-Davila’s refusal to name his friend could be a violation of the agreement, but the government is holding up its end of the agreement even if Aldrete-Davila hasn’t.

49-51 – R. Sanchez told C. Sanchez that he grew up with Aldrete-Davila in San Isidro, but he did not tell him he was chamberlain at his sister’s quinceanera or that he had socialized with him in the past year. C. Sanchez was more cautious by confirming the allegations in interviews with agents and review of documents. C. Sanchez was not concerned that R. Sanchez used the BP computer regarding Aldrete-Davila because he understood R. Sanchez’s supervisor told him to. C. Sanchez knew that R. Sanchez’s memo was written after he had done the computer check. C. Sanchez did not check the computer to find out what R. Sanchez checked.

52 – R. Sanchez’s MIL took Aldrete-Davila to the hospital so there is an ongoing relationship between their families. The mothers are not related but “they treat each other like sisters, very close.” [Objection; Overruled.]

53 – In May or June 2005, Chris Smith of the Customs and Border Protection General Counsel’s office advised C. Sanchez that Aldrete-Davila filed a $5M lawsuit against the BP.

53-54 – The BP can ask the Mexican government to assist in investigations so there are ways to gather information in Mexico. C. Sanchez asked the Mexican Department of Diplomatic Security Service to investigate Aldrete-Davila. In addition, Sanchez acknowledged that US agents have a duty to notify the Mexican government if they learn criminal activity has occurred in Mexico.

54-55 – Sanchez became aware that friends of Aldrete-Davila planned to retaliate against the BP by shooting at BP agents. Sanchez notified the BP and asked Aldrete-Davila who these people were, but Aldrete-Davila didn’t want to tell him.

[Witness excused.]

59 Responses to “DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — End of Chris Sanchez’s Testimony (from Volume VII)”

  1. 43-45 – Also, after the original I-94 expired, C. Sanchez gave Aldrete-Davila another border crossing card, a “temporary parole” for humanitarian reasons, to enable him to cross the border for medical treatment.

    Temporary parole? What was he being paroled from?

    If I’m reading C.Sanchez’s testimony with a suspicion that Davila is a US citizen ( dual citizenship ) and that the government doesn’t want that known, I can see instances where Sanchez avoids direct answers to questions involving “allowing” Davila into the US.

    That suspicion is based on later testimony by Davila that he presents a “voter card” to get into the US.

    I don’t think a voter card for Mexico would be much use to him for the purpose of being allowed into the US. I mean, he has a Mexican drivers licence if Mexican identification was the issue and he didn’t mention using that to get in.

    Last I heard, only US citizens can vote in the US.

    Perhaps he was given a “temporary parole” from some sort of house-arrest in Mexico.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  2. The transcripts also confirm that OAD brought in a second load, and that wasn’t allowed at trial. OAD’s other statements were apparently that he was just an “amateur” smuggler, something contradicted by the second load and casting doubt on his other statements.

    This isn’t in the article, but should be looked into: did he use any documents provided as part of immunity to smuggle that or other loads?

    TLB (cc42f6)

  3. J Curtis; please read my last post on the testimony of R. Sanchez. There are a lot of holes there.
    One other thing about the “voter card”; a voter card can be obtained in Texas without proving citizenship. All this is required is a utility bill, pay check stub, rent receipt, or another document with one’s name on it. It is asked on the form if you are legally allowed to vote in the United States. Having worked in the voter’s registrar’s office in my county, I can tell you that I know there are illegals registering to vote using the above documents. All they do is check that they are legally allowed to vote. There are no checks to make sure that the person registering to vote IS, in fact, a legal citizen of the United States. When I called the State election board in Austin, I was told that we simply take their word for it that they are legal. Yet, in order to be a citizen you have to have a working knowledge of English and I was required to register people who spoke no English.

    I would be interested to know what ramifications there would have been had it been revealed that Davila was actually an American citizen.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  4. TLB, Sutton was specific. He had no knowledge of any subsequent bust of Davila. How can that be?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  5. retire05,

    If Davila has a “voter card”, wouldn’t it have to be mailed to him? I wonder what address was on the card.

    If illegal aliens can get a voter card AND can use that voter card to get into the US…all I can say is…wow.

    But would Davila present an illegal voter card at the border and then tell everyone during this trial? He isn’t stupid and is very good at not incriminating himself. He actually says it twice, although the second time he says “voter registration”. I think he would have caught himself after the first time if he didn’t feel very comfortable about making his voter card known to a room full of law folk.

    Something else. He claims he had a “local border pass” when he was a child but he lost it, and this is why he needed help getting into the US during this time following the incident. This implies that it was some permanent border pass and I don’t know why someone in Mexico would be given a permanent border pass when he was a child…unless he’s a US citizen.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  6. J Curtis; yes, the voter “card” would have been mailed to him at an address within the state of Texas, if that is where he registered.

    I have crossed the border into Mexico a number of times. On my return, I presented my driver’s license and my voter registration card before I was allowed to exit the bridge to the U.S. side.

    Could the “local border pass” have been given to him because he attended school in the U.S.? Many Mexican nationals come across the border to attend U.S. schools (especially in California).

    Did you read my other post on R. Sanchez’s testimony?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  7. J Curtis, my post on R. Sanchez is under VI.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  8. The transcripts also confirm that OAD brought in a second load, and that wasn’t allowed at trial. OAD’s other statements were apparently that he was just an “amateur” smuggler, something contradicted by the second load and casting doubt on his other statements.

    This isn’t in the article, but should be looked into: did he use any documents provided as part of immunity to smuggle that or other loads?

    Comment by TLB

    I’m about a day or two ahead of WND. I mentioned all of this back in the first thread.

    Davila wasn’t issued a border pass after the second incident. It was either revoked or they refused to renew it. The judge wouldn’t allow the defense to ask about that because it was due to the second drug bust.

    Davila had the government issued gold card permit to smuggle drugs into the US during those months before he was busted. Probably said “Department Of Homeland Security” right on the damn thing.

    Bonus: He had a hazardous materials permit and a commercial drivers licence. And of course, a history of smuggling illegal stuff across the border. Then he was issued a DHS gold pass.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  9. J Curtis,

    I think you may be reading more into the term “temporary parole” than it means. The US government issues temporary border crossing permits to people for humanitarian and other emergency reasons. One of the names for that permit is an advance parole and/or a temporary parole. It doesn’t have anything to do with jail, probation or parole as we think of those terms in the criminal justice system.

    The spam filter is blocking the link but you can go to this government website if you want further information. Search using the words humanitarian parole.

    DRJ (605076)

  10. I have a minor thought regarding this matter. According to C. Sanchez’s testimony concerning Aldrete-Davila’s border crossing permits, this trial was originally set for October 2005 and Aldrete-Davila was given a temporary parole to come to the trial in October. Defense counsel’s comments suggest Aldrete-Davila was detained in the US in October in another drug-related incident.

    At some point, this trial was rescheduled until February 2006. Trial continuances are common and the trial could have been continued for an unrelated reason, but why did the government issue the border crossing permit to Aldrete-Davila if the trial had already been continued?

    My guess is that the two items are related. It undoubtedly put a crimp in the prosecution’s case to have their star witness detained while in the US on a temporary parole they issued. That’s probably why the government couldn’t charge Aldrete-Davila with illegal entry, assuming they even wanted to.

    DRJ (605076)

  11. That’s why I was thinking “temporary parole” had something to with being paroled from some kind of restrictions or house arrest that he was put on after his second drug bust.

    How could they release him to a foreign country after this arrest? What kind of bail does that require? No, he had to have been released to the custody of some Mexican law enforcement agency.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  12. J Curtis,

    My guess is that Aldrete-Davila wasn’t arrested in October, just as Johnny Sutton carefully said, but he might have been detained in connection with a drug offense. Arrest and detention seem like the same thing but lawyers can plausibly claim they are different since arrest involves criminal charges and detention doesn’t.

    I think the term “temporary parole” is a term used in the immigration area to permit temporary border crossing for humanitarian or other emergency reasons, as stated at the link I provided above. I don’t think it has anything to do with detention or the justice system.

    In fact, I suspect law enforcement probably released Aldrete-Davila in October because he had a document showing that he was legally in the US. In border drug enforcement, suspects are often detained on immigration violations while law enforcement gathers evidence for criminal charges. Because of the temporary parole, law enforcement probably couldn’t detain Aldrete-Davila on an immigration violation. It’s possible they couldn’t gather sufficient evidence to make a drug arrest or (if you believe in government conspiracy theories) that someone intervened to stop that from happening.

    However, this is all a guess and not my area of expertise. Any knowledgeable law enforcement people care to chime in?

    DRJ (605076)

  13. “My guess is that Aldrete-Davila wasn’t arrested in October, just as Johnny Sutton carefully said, but he might have been detained…”

    Or perhaps he was arrested and a legal fiction was created that he wasn’t. That’s what I was wondering about.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  14. Or perhaps he was arrested and a legal fiction was created that he wasn’t. That’s what I was wondering about.

    Unless it was the DHS that made the drug bust, I doubt those who made the bust would be inclined to coddle Davila. I’m sure he was arrested on the spot. He may have been unarrested once the feds got wind of it.

    I wonder if those who he was busted with suspect that Davila set them up and was working with the cops as an informant. Wait…ya think it’s possible he was?…nah.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  15. Jerri Lynn, could it be that the legal “fiction” was the immunity agreement? Could that have been the smoking gun used to have Davila released on the second charge? If so, it would be interesting to know who busted Davila in October, 2005. DHS? Border Sheriff? BP? And where the bust occured? Fabens sector?
    BTW, are you connected to SueBob?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  16. Hold on, folks. Let’s think about what happens when law enforcement (whether it’s the police or a Sheriff’s office) gets involved. First, they detain a suspect and take them to a processing point like a police station. Charges aren’t filed in the field. At processing, I think Aldrete-Davila would have shown them his temporary parole papers that authorized him to be in the United States. Those papers probably said why he was in the US, e.g., as a witness at a federal trial.

    Almost any law enforcement officer I know would be on the phone calling the federal officials about their witness. Very few Texas law enforcement offices want to mess with a federal investigation, let alone mess up a federal trial. So I still think Sutton was probably accurate when he said that Aldrete-Davila was never arrested but that doesn’t mean he was never detained.

    DRJ (605076)

  17. Was this October 2005 detention at the border supposed to be a drug bust? That’s everybody is positing. Or was it just an illegal entry?

    DRJ, I find it hard to believe that another law enforcement agency would just decide to forget about a drug arrest. I suppose it’s plausible. But didn’t these two Border Patrol agents have the support of a lot of different police agencies? They would have loved to have the trial blow up in the in the U.S. Attorey’s faces.

    lc (1401be)

  18. In the Texas county where I live the local sheriff’s office made a drug bust. They hauled the guy off to our local county jail. The guy was screaming how he was a mole for the feds who were looking to try to make a bigger bust. The sheriff called the feds and confirmed what the guy was saying and within the hours the feds showed up at the sheriff’s office. The guy was released. Now this guy was guilty as hell, he was operating a meth kitchen, but was still working with the feds, so he walked.
    The sheriff was livid.
    I was at lunch with the sheriff and the local DA a few days later and they were complaining how the feds were screwing up their efforts to clean the county of the drug dealers.
    About a year later there was another drug bust but this time it went down. I don’t remember how it was done, but it involved a Texas Game Warden and the feds could not supercede his authority. Game wardens in Texas are the ultimate authority, even exceeding the authority of the Rangers. Or at least, that is what I was told.
    Davila was the prosecutions key witness. It would have looked pretty bad to say “excuse me your honor, but our witness is in jail for another drug bust”. The case would have gone out the window.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  19. LC,

    Based on the transcript of the defense counsel’s statements, I think the October incident involved drugs. My point is that the initial basis for holding a suspect and the first charges filed are often based on illegal entry. It provides a valid reason to hold the suspect and gives the authorities time to gather evidence and draft indictments on the drug charges.

    DRJ (605076)

  20. LC,

    My guess is that the Border Patrol is treating Fabens as an out-of-control station and maybe it was. There are references in the transcript to the way things happen at Fabens and how it’s done differently at other stations. I don’t know whether that’s true – maybe it is and the agents at this station routinely violated procedures – or maybe not. In any event, since this happened, I suspect the supervisors and agents at the other BP stations are sticklers for procedure and publicly claiming that Fabens was different.

    DRJ (605076)

  21. retire05,

    I don’t think I know enough about criminal law or procedure to know how to answer your question about immunity. I wish that one of the criminal lawyers on the site would tell me if the prosecutor was playing games with the type of immunity he was given so that he wouldn’t testify to certain things because that’s what it looks like to me.

    I’m SueBob in answer to your question.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  22. They actually were discussing where the October drug bust happened. Cipriano Ortiz house, something like that. Nothing on google.

    The government quashed two subpoenas for DEA agents to testify for the defense about the same incident. Looks like it was a federal bust.

    Something else that I found relating to Davila’s legal status after the october bust. The defense wasn’t allowed to get into who had custody of Davila and what kind of custody it was at the time of trial, because it was part of the motion in limine so it was a prejudicial kind of custody not related to the first smuggling incident. VIII 72 18>

    J Curtis (d21251)

  23. Here is a question that keeps rolling around in my head. If the other three agents, who were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony, have been fired, now what? They have lost the very thing they were trying to protect, their jobs. And being reprimanded for their failure to submit reports on the shooting.
    So now their jobs are gone, they can no longer be reprimanded and the failure to report a shooting was a simple disclipinary action offence to begin with.
    Will they be able to offer statements at appeal?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  24. Hey! Maybe Davila’s border pass was a gps tracking device.

    I’m really reaching for a reason to give the government some credit at this point.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  25. No, the fired agents can’t offered statements at appeal.

    An appeal is a review of the judge’s legal rulings. It’s not a review of the facts. The jury has already ruled on the facts.

    lc (1401be)

  26. I’m studying the closing arguments to see what the prosecution says it proved. Here, on page 30 of Volume XV is a troubling statment by the prosecutor:

    “…Jesus Christ, I mean, he is an unemployed person. We all know that there’s a lot of poverty in Mexico. We know why people commit these crimes. Because they don’t have the money to feed their families. That’s why they do it.”

    They portrayed this drug-trafficking scumbag as some kind of saint.

    [Saint? Or just pathetic? — P]

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  27. “Because they don’t have the money to feed their families. That’s why they do it.”

    So they poison our kids to feed theirs. Nice thinking from our Justice Department.

    nk (5a2f98)

  28. They portrayed this drug-trafficking scumbag as some kind of saint.

    Comment by Jerri Lynn Ward

    Playing to the hispanic jury.

    I just bet that the jurors who have come forward saying they were lied to and pressured were the three with non-hispanic names.

    I wonder how many of the jurors returned to their homes in Mexico after the verdict. Federal courts summon juries based on voter registration. Davila was apparently a registered voter.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  29. “Because they don’t have the money to feed their families. That’s why they do it.”

    So they poison our kids to feed theirs. Nice thinking from our Justice Department.

    Comment by nk

    Perfectly stated. Would be a nice WND headline, and accurate.

    “Bush Justice Department Argues That Mexican Drug Smugglers Need To ‘Feed Their Families'”.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  30. “I just bet that the jurors who have come forward saying they were lied to and pressured were the three with non-hispanic names” Comment by J. Curtis

    You mean the three weak-will ninnies who voted against their consciences because the jury foreman was mean to them? One of them was named Claudia Torres.

    lc (1401be)

  31. I’m sorry. I know Patterico disagrees with me, but this whole case stinks. And so does our policy on BP agents. Just read some of the posts on the BP web sites. They are not allowed to persue at a high rate of speed. They are not supposed to worry about capturing drug dealers, just the loads. They are not supposed to fire back when fired upon.
    The U.S. Attoney’s office says it has a zero tolerance policy against those who attack BP agents. Yet, on Local 1613 it states that at least four BP have been physically attacked by illegals in the last few months and the U.S. Attorneys are refusing to do anything about it.

    David Sipes, Gilmo Hernandez, Ramos and Compean. All prosecuted (and found guilty) for doing their jobs. There definatly seems to be a pattern.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  32. lc, are you telling me that if a witness commits perjury under duress, and then after the trial recants, that is not admissable at appeal?

    retire05 (8536d6)

  33. You mean the three weak-will ninnies who voted against their consciences because the jury foreman was mean to them? One of them was named Claudia Torres.

    Comment by lc

    They might not have had the “courage of their conviction”, but it’s interesting that you feel the need to attack that aspect when there are lives and freedom at stake as a result of their weak-willedness.

    I’d like to ask you, lc, and anyone else who was predisposed to support the government every step of the way before the trial transcripts were released: Do you find anything in these transcripts that causes you concern about the governments behavior in this case?

    I’m happy to learn that at least one of the jurors with a hispanic name has come forward.

    I’m happy to have lost that bet.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  34. Under your scenario, I think you could have a motion for a new trial in front of the original trial judge, and she could order a new trial.

    But an appeal court doesn’t look at the facts, become outraged, and order a defendant released. They are looking for judicial error, meaning what evidence the court allowed and didn’t allow, rulings on objections, etc. You don’t get a new trial on the facts at the appellate level. Jurors rule on facts, and they found these two defendants guilty. The appellate court is not going to care about what step Davila took or didn’t take toward Compean, or what party Rene Sanchez went to for Davila’s sister a million years ago.

    lc (1401be)

  35. I don’t support the government of the way. I think these sentences are excessive. I don’t think it’s fair that these defendants received enhanced sentences for committing a felony with a firearm, when they were lawfully carrying a firearm in the course of their employment.

    But I’m not going to be some kook who is forever distrustful of the government. And there has been a lot of schizophrenia in a lot of these posts. Border Patrol agents are holy — except if he’s Rene Sanchez. Everybody’s crooked — the U.S. attorneys, the judge, the court reporter, etc.

    These guys had a trial and they were found guilty. They should have taken the plea offer.

    lc (1401be)

  36. “Jurors rule on facts, and they found these two defendants guilty.”

    Really? Have you ever stood outside the jury room with your ear plastered to the door and listened to them? I have. I had to quit doing that out of total frustration and disgust.

    I am one of the few attorneys I know who have ever served on a jury. I essentially took over and stampeded them to a verdict within an hour. It was the right one, but I had to verbally throttle a few of them who wanted to focus on things other than the “facts”.

    I have my own thoughts about juries and they aren’t necessarily good.

    After 26 years of practice, I find it difficult to summon up much sentimentality about juries. Especially juries in cities like El Paso.

    In fact, I have very little respect for the legal system in El Paso. Some of it stems from my experience with a certified interpreter who helped a plaintiff–whoops, I mean interpreted a plaintiff’s testimony–during a deposition I took there ten or so years ago.

    Of course, I probably wouldn’t be revealing all this had I not just returned from happy hour.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  37. Jerri Lynne Ward,

    Well, then lobby your legislators to do away with the jury system. But you want to be disgusted with juries because they don’t have the sense to come up with the verdicts you want.

    Where I live, jurors are paid the princely sum of nine dollars a day. They’re told to show up on a certain day, or else. They have to sit in a trial for God knows how long, listening about people they don’t know and matters they don’t care about.

    Frankly, I think any juror deserves better than the contempt they receive from you.

    lc (1401be)

  38. “Well, then lobby your legislators to do away with the jury system.”

    I’d rather lobby to do away with the public school system to which I attribute the increasing inability of our citizens to engage in critical and independent thinking.

    You said that juries decide cases on the facts. I offered eye-witness and ear-witness evidence to the contrary. I don’t consider that to be a matter of expressing contempt–only fact based on my observations.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  39. Absolutely freaking amazing. Bush/Gonzales are smart enough to railroad these Border Patrol agents without breaking appeal rules. Bush generally approves of human/drug smuggling, at the same time he boasts about all the support he gives to the Border Patrol. This discrepancy set up an occupational bear trap the Border Patrol agents stepped in. I suppose I’m part of the problem, having voted Bush 5 times in presidential elections.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  40. But I’m not going to be some kook who is forever distrustful of the government. And there has been a lot of schizophrenia in a lot of these posts. Border Patrol agents are holy — except if he’s Rene Sanchez. Everybody’s crooked — the U.S. attorneys, the judge, the court reporter, etc.

    Comment by lc

    Do you have the courage to challenge the posters on each of your accusations? I suspect you don’t because I’ve known a few weak-willed ninnies.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  41. “I don’t think it’s fair that these defendants received enhanced sentences for committing a felony with a firearm, when they were lawfully carrying a firearm in the course of their employment.”

    That is the most useful thought on this thread so far. A very appealable issue. Did Congress intend to apply the same rule to peace officers whom it obligates to have guns and to felons who have illegally obtained and are carrying guns?

    nk (b57bfb)

  42. Where I live, jurors are paid the princely sum of nine dollars a day.

    That’s a lot of tortillas.

    Thank You…

    J Curtis (d21251)

  43. NK – the voice of reason.

    DRJ (605076)

  44. I agree with NK as well. I don’t agree with the verdict, but I fear that the testimony will not support a finding that the verdict is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. NK offers the best hope on appeal, in my opinion–so far.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  45. Thank you, DRJ. Well, you know … even a blind hog sometimes finds an acorn.

    nk (b57bfb)

  46. Hey, guys/girls. It was not my inspiration, it was lc’s, comment #35. Credit where credit is due.

    nk (b57bfb)

  47. lc, federal jurors receive $40 a day so I don’t know where you got the $9. No, that is not a hellofa lot of money for doing what I consider everyone’s civic duty and it is a hellofa lot more than the average soldier in Iraq is earning putting his ass on the line for other Americans. So please, don’t cry about their lousy pay.

    You seem to want to be on the side of a drug running slug who just happened to have gotten shot while trying to bring his poison into our nation. Perhaps if you had a child that ruined their lives with this slugs product, you would not be so quick to plead his case. Do you have any idea what it is like to find your child dead with a needle stuck in their arm? Personally, I think the BP should have been reprimanded for not killing the bastard. Now he will wind up with a nice settlement from his law suit against the Border Patrol. Paid to him out of your tax money. How does that sit with you? Your kid gets his product and you have to pay him for his trouble.

    retire05 (8536d6)

  48. Hey, guys/girls. It was not my inspiration, it was lc’s, comment #35. Credit where credit is due.

    Comment by nk

    I don’t understand the orgy. Is it something about recognizing that “using a weapon during commission of crime” and “using a weapon” shouldn’t be stackable?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  49. Peace officers are obligated to have weapons and are not allowed to retreat from the threat of force but must use them when necessary. And the necessity is a split-second decision in a very tense situation. Kind of different from some scag buying a stolen gun from a burglar and using it to rob a convenience store.

    nk (b57bfb)

  50. Now he will wind up with a nice settlement from his law suit against the Border Patrol. Paid to him out of your tax money. How does that sit with you? Your kid gets his product and you have to pay him for his trouble.

    Comment by retire05

    By the way, on that. Who has the job of defending my money from this lawsuit? Bush’s US Attorneys?

    Bet they fight real hard on my behalf…not. Would they challenge the case they have already made?

    Davila won the lottery when he made the decision to run for the border.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  51. Peace officers are obligated to have weapons and are not allowed to retreat from the threat of force but must use them when necessary. And the necessity is a split-second decision in a very tense situation. Kind of different from some scag buying a stolen gun from a burglar and using it to rob a convenience store.

    Comment by nk

    No question about that. But I don’t think lc agrees that that applies here.

    I was trying to understand lc’s concerns. Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy he has some concerns. Just trying to understand those concerns.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  52. /sigh

    All prosecuted (and found guilty) for doing their jobs.

    You have an interesting definition of “doing their jobs” if it includes shooting unarmed men (against policy) and obstructing investigations by cleaning the site to cover it up.

    ————————————-

    and it is a hellofa lot more than the average soldier in Iraq is earning putting his ass on the line for other Americans

    No it isn’t. Jeez man. Do you think about any of this stuff before you post it? Base pay for an E-1 is $1301 per month, and that doesn’t include allowances or combat pay. 30 x 40 = 1200.

    Good grief.

    Dwilkers (4f4ebf)

  53. “I don’t think it’s fair that these defendants received enhanced sentences for committing a felony with a firearm, when they were lawfully carrying a firearm in the course of their employment.”

    That is the most useful thought on this thread so far. A very appealable issue. Did Congress intend to apply the same rule to peace officers whom it obligates to have guns and to felons who have illegally obtained and are carrying guns?

    I agree with nk, this is the most interesting point in the thread. IANAL, but I’m not sure how good an appeal this makes, after all them being authorized to carry the firearm doesn’t mean they can commit crimes with it.

    For example, someone with a concealed carry permit would still be subject to this enhancement, no?

    Still, I’m wondering why the judge applied this. In fact I’ve drifted towards agreement with those that argue these sentences were very heavy handed under the circumstances.

    (It isn’t mandatory minimums either. According to a sitting assistant us atty I talked to recently they were tossed by the SCOTUS a while back. Although judges do nod and wink at them generally, they don’t have to do so.)

    Dwilkers (4f4ebf)

  54. “I don’t think it’s fair that these defendants received enhanced sentences for committing a felony with a firearm, when they were lawfully carrying a firearm in the course of their employment.”

    That is the most useful thought on this thread so far…
    nk

    I agree with nk, this is the most interesting point in the thread…
    Dwilkers

    I still don’t understand what you guys are marvelling over.

    If a cop who is legally carrying a firearm breaks into a house, rapes the occupant and puts a bullet in her head with his lawfully carried firearm, he should get even more of an enhanced sentence than someone who wasn’t legally armed.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  55. “I don’t think it’s fair that these defendants received enhanced sentences for committing a felony with a firearm, when they were lawfully carrying a firearm in the course of their employment.”

    None of us would apply that statement for the vast majority of felonies committed by cops using their lawfully carried firearms, so what is it about this particular case that would make you support such a policy exception?

    If the agents just “wanted to shoot some Mexicans”, as the government once claimed, you wouldn’t want to give them a break because they used a legally possessed firearm, would you?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  56. Lawfully carrying a firearm.

    If it was a night stick or a flashlight they still would be found guilty.

    The firearm, obtained legally or illegally is usually not the issue

    the issue is what were the actions of the individual.

    Also, what laws and ordinances out there that have separate sentencing for Peace officers vs non peace officers?

    EricPWJohnson (405d78)

  57. Well, the ten-year enhancement was not merely a sentencing factor, it was a substantive offense.

    And it is not fair to minimize the issue that peace officers merely “lawfully carry firearms” comparable to CCW permit holders or hunters. They are obligated to carry firearms and they are obligated to use them in the performance of their duties in order to protect themselves and the public. Now, I have not seen anything in this case that these Border Patrolmen set out to commit a felony. They set out to prevent a felony and committed errors of judgment. Did Congress intend that because they had guns, issued to them by the government actually, that they are guilty of the same offense as a bank robber would be?

    nk (4d4a9d)

  58. I’ve read the entire TX.

    It’s not clear that there was anything more than the allegation that Aldrete was observed at a known safe house in October.

    Not that that’s a “good” fact – but it doesn’t mean he was arrested or even detained there. Just that at some point his presence was observed by some unknown person.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  59. […] …DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — End of Chris Sanchez’s Testimony (from Volume VII) […]

    Headline Summaries: Border Security at Traction Control (2d8ea5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0931 secs.