Patterico's Pontifications

2/19/2007

DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — Oscar Juarez (Vols. VIII and IX)

Filed under: Crime,General,Immigration — DRJ @ 7:46 am



Just one witness today – Oscar Juarez, a Border Patrol agent who received immunity in exchange for his testimony – but he was on the stand for almost 2 days and the summary is lengthy. Included are several excerpts of Juarez’s testimony, not only because it’s important to this case but also because I suspect his testimony shows in a real way how the border works.

If that’s not enough, the exchanges between the witness and the lawyers were often intense. Instead of the lengthy bench conferences that we’ve seen up to now, this was all about the lawyers and the witness. By legal standards, this was high drama.

PS – There were 3 references to O.J. Simpson in this testimony. I’ve included 2 of them. Bonus points (sorry – no actual prize will be awarded) to the first commenter who finds them.


From Vol. VIII:

Witness #5 – Oscar Juarez:

Government direct examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):

136-138– Oscar Juarez has been a Border Patrol agent for 2-1/2 years. His main duties are to patrol the border and apprehend illegal immigrants. However, since March 2005, Juarez has been on administrative duties since the investigation of the shooting of Aldrete-Davila in Fabens. He was placed on administrative duty because he was a witness of the shooting and failed to report it.

137-138 – At the request of Mr. Gonzalez, the prosecutor, Juarez identified Compean and Ramos in the courtroom.

138-139 – Juarez is not allowed to wear a uniform or carry a badge or gun while he is on administrative duty.

139-141 – On February 17, 2005, Juarez was in Zone/Area 2. Juarez was shown GOV EXH 84, GOV EXH 1, and GOV EXH 2 – three maps of the Fabens area – to use in identifying where Zone 2 is located. He chose to use GOV EXH 2, which was offered and admitted without objection.]

141 – Juarez doesn’t care whether they call him Mr. Juarez or Agent Juarez.

141-143 – Around Noon on February 17, 2005, Juarez was patrolling a large group of illegal aliens who were attempting to cross by a ranch known as Martinez Farms. Around 1 PM he heard a radio transmission to be on the lookout for a possible 46, a minivan that was light in color. [Juarez was unable to locate his position on GOV EXH 1 or GOV EXH 2, but he was able to locate it on GOV EXH 84.] At approximately 1:11 PM, Juarez was on the American levee in an area known as Martinez Farming and he pointed out that location on the map identified as GOV EXH 84. He was by himself on the levee pushing back a large group of aliens.

143-144 – When Juarez heard the radio call, he left the levee via the CC Bills gate to Wingo [Reserve] Road, then onto Island Road, and then left onto Lower Island Road. [Juarez identified GOV EXH 83A, a picture of the CC Bills gate, and GOV EXH 83B, a picture of the Wingo Reserve Road.] The CC Bills gate was unlocked and open. The agents have keys so they can control the area.

145-146 – [Juarez identified GOV EXH 83D, a picture of the CC Bills chain and gate, and GOV EXH 83E, a picture of the lock on that gate.] He left the gate unlocked.

146-147 – [Government offered GOV EXHS 8A-83E for admission. Defense counsel objected as to relevance. Ms. Kanoff for the government stated that there would be testimony later of a discussion between another witness and Compean at the CC Bills gate. The parties agreed to the admission of GOV EXHS 83A and 83B to assist the jury.] NOTE: I don’t think the government discussed GOV EXH 83C with this witness.

147-151 – Juarez was on the levee at 1:11 PM and left when he heard the radio call. He traveled through the CC Bills gate [GOV EXH 83B]. He did not have to get out of his car because the gate was unlocked and open. He left the gate open after he drove through toward the Wingo Reserve Road. [Juarez identified this location on the map.] He traveled approximately 2 miles to the next intersection at Guadalupe Island Road [referred to in later testimony as Island Guadalupe and called Robinson on the map], and he turned left on Guadalupe Island Road and traveled about ¼ of a mile, then right on Lower Island Road to Jess Harris Road, and then right (North) on Fabens Road.

151-152 – [Juarez refreshed his recollection regarding the color of the van with GOV EXH 91 (corrected later as GOV EXH 92), a transcript of the radio transmission from February 17, 2005.] The radio call involved a blue van. Juarez started looking for a blue van but was unable to find it. He did see a gray van. He thought it could be the same van because it came from the right area. Juarez radioed Compean that he saw a full-size van, gray in color, traveling northbound away from the levee.

152-153 – Juarez doesn’t remember if he used the repeater or the local radio channel. [After looking at GOV EXH 92, the transcript:] Juarez stated he used the repeater channel to contact Compean. He used the repeater because it’s better communication – no static.

153-154 – Juarez was unable to say if he heard someone ask “Agent Compean – is he 10-23?” Juarez forgot what 10-23 means: “It’s been a year. So I want to make sure. I don’t have my 10 codes with me.” Juarez thinks it means “clear the channel” but he isn’t sure.

154-155 – Compean’s instructions were to be on the lookout for a blue van leaving the area. Juarez tried to get confirmation from Compean if the van he saw was the one Compean was looking for. Compean thought it could be, “even though it’s a different [color?] van.” The van Juarez saw was gray.

155-156 – Juarez stated the van he saw was traveling away from the border going northbound. Juarez tried to catch up with the van but he was unable to catch it. The van was on Jess Harris Road and that road has an S curve and then turns into Fabens Road. [Juarez identified GOV EXH 85, a photo of Fabens Road before the S curve.] Juarez stated that the photo shows that on either side of the road are pecan orchards. [GOV EXH 85 offered and admitted without objection.]

156-159 – There is a stop sign at the intersection of Fabens/Jess Harris and Island Guadalupe Road. Juarez saw the van on the left-side of the “Fabens Island Road” [?], and then it passed the intersection and continued north. Juarez was on Fabens Road when he saw the van turn onto it. He sped up to catch the van but did not catch it for 2-3 miles until he got to the traffic light in Fabens. There was a red light at the intersection and the van slowed down. Juarez did not catch the van until he came to the intersection of Alameda and Fabens. [Juarez identified the intersection of Alameda and Fabens on the map.]

159-160 – The light turned green and the van turned left. Immediately after the van crossed the intersection, Juarez activated his overhead emergency lights. He wanted to do an immigration check on the van. The van slowed down but never stopped. The van immediately made a left turn and then another left [demonstrated on the map]. Juarez followed.

161-162 – Juarez turned off his emergency lights about a mile – a minute – after he left town [at the place marked “Fabens C” on the map]. Juarez turned off his lights because Agent Ramos signaled him to turn them off.

162-163 – Ramos took over when the van started southbound on Fabens Road. [Juarez identified that point on GOV EXH 40.] Ramos “took the eye,” meaning he’s responsible for radio traffic with the other agents “To get directions and to call out landmarks that could help us, you know, join the pursuit, or help him, or assist him.”

163-164 – Ramos signaled Juarez to turn off his lights by using his left hand to hit the side of his door, and that’s when Juarez said “Oops, I have the lights on” and turned his lights off. Ramos never turned on his lights.

164-165 – Juarez followed the van and Ramos. They were going fast. The speed limit varies from 35, 45, 55 mph. The van, Ramos and Juarez were exceeding those limits. Juarez agreed that when chasing someone in excess of the speed limit, agents are required to notify a supervisor. Juarez did not do that and he did not hear Ramos do that.

165-166 – The chase continued until they reached the levee and the irrigation canal. Juarez did not see when the van reached the irrigation canal because the dirt road was unsafe and he had to fall back. Ramos did not fall behind. Ramos was less than a car length behind the van on the paved and the dirt roads. Juarez was approximately 6-8 car lengths behind – a few seconds – when Ramos and the van came to a stop. Juarez parked to the left of the van and Ramos.

166-167 – [Juarez identified GOV EXH 10, a photo of the van, and GOV EXH 12, a photo of the van stopped near the canal. Juarez identified Ramos in GOV EXH 12. Juarez also identified GOV EXH 16, a photo of the right side of the van. GOV EXHS 10, 12, and 16 were offered and admitted without objection.]

168-169 – Juarez did not know what was in the van because it was too far away to see inside. [Using GOV EXH 12:] Juarez identified curtains at the windows of the van. Juarez was closer to the van than Ramos when they were driving downtown.

170-172 – Ramos parked directly behind the van. Juarez parked to the left of the van. He slid on the dirt as he stopped so he went almost as far as the van. Juarez got out and went down into the canal, the irrigation ditch. Juarez looked across the ditch and saw Compean’s unit and Compean outside his unit. Compean was standing holding his shotgun. [Juarez viewed a shotgun pictured in GOV EXH 13 as one that looked like Compean’s shotgun.] Compean was holding the shotgun at “port arms” or ready. “Hot ready” means you “press the safe and round the chamber.”

172-173 – Compean doesn’t move when Juarez first sees him. He just stands there. Juarez goes into the canal and sees the driver of the van near the water. The driver looked at Juarez and that’s when he “went like a bullet” across the water. Juarez does not have his weapon drawn because he felt there “was not threat.” Juarez figured the driver just wanted to “go back where he came from … to Mexico.”

173-175 – Juarez did not yell anything at the driver. He did not see Ramos but he saw Compean make a couple of steps toward the driver. Juarez could not tell if Compean was trying to block or hit the driver. Then Compean raised the butt of this rifle and made a full swing at the driver.

“Q. And where did he have his hands?
A. When he got over there, I noticed the driver when Agent Compean attempted to block him or hit him, the driver of the van went like this. But he was fast. I mean, that driver was fast. He went like that. And went, boom, he took off right away.
Q. But as he’s approaching Agent Compean, do you see if his hands are raised or lowered?
A. No. Almost like this, like trying to block. Trying to block him or –
Q. But his hands were already raised when he attempts to block?
A. Yes, they were.”

176-178 – Juarez did not see anything in the driver’s hands. He did not see a weapon and did not think the driver had a weapon. No one yelled “cover” – there’s a weapon – as they were trained to do. Juarez thinks the driver was attempting to block Compean with his hand and then he ran to the levee. Compean fell down. Juarez was standing in the canal when Compean fell. [Juarez demonstrated how Compean fell.] When Compean fell, the shotgun went down the canal. Compean did not retrieve his shotgun then. He got up and ran after the driver.

[NOTE: There were several instances during this section and other sections where defense counsel objected to leading questions and the objections were sustained by the Court. I omitted most of these instances for continuity and convenience.]

178-179 – Juarez saw Compean shooting as Juarez climbed out of the canal and returned to the van. [Juarez identified the place where he saw Compean shooting in the photo marked GOV EXH 20. The exhibit is a photo that apparently shows part of a person and car.] Juarez could see Compean from his waist to his head as depicted in the photo. Juarez could not remember if the car in the photo was in the same place as Compean’s vehicle. [GOV EXH 20 offered for admission. Defense counsel objected because Juarez did not know if the photo was accurate. The Court sustained the objection.]

180-183 – Juarez identified GOV EXH 20 as the angle he saw, other than the vehicle. [Bench conference regarding the admissibility of GOV EXH 20. Court in afternoon recess while counsel reviews photos/exhibits. During the recess, the Court ruled that only the photos that were actually taken February 17, 2005, (GOV EXHS 9 and 15) can be used to show angles/views. GOV EXH 20 will not be admitted.]

183-223 – [Dr. Todd Miller, urological surgeon at William Beaumont Hospital, was taken out of turn due to his need to return for scheduled surgeries. For continuity, I have reserved this testimony for another post.]

From Vol. IX:

Witness #5 – Oscar Juarez:

Government direct examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez), continued:

4 – Juarez received immunity in exchange for his cooperation with this investigation. The agreement is that Juarez will not be prosecuted if he tells the truth about what happened at Fabens on February 17, 2005.

5-6 – The highest speed reached by Juarez as he followed the van was 60-65 mph. Ramos was ahead of Juarez and pulled further away. Juarez did not call a supervisor and he did not hear Ramos call a supervisor.

[NOTE: Once again, there were multiple objections to leading questions, all of which were sustained by the Court. The government counsel, Mr. Gonzalez, assured the Court he was just trying to move things along and apologized to defense counsel.]

7 – Agent Ignacio Ramos is called Nacho.

7-8 – Juarez reviewed again how Ramos signaled Juarez to turn off his emergency lights, by tapping the upper door. Juarez assumes that Ramos radio was working that day. Ramos did not communicate with Juarez via radio to tell him to turn off his emergency lights, either by repeater or local channels.

8 – The driver of the van had not yet committed any felony violations when the van was first pursued in the downtown Fabens area or when Ramos and Juarez were chasing the van. He had not yet committed a misdemeanor violation.

9-10 – Ramos and Juarez do not have authority to issue traffic citations or make traffic stops.

10 – The driver of the van had not violated any immigration laws when Ramos and Juarez were chasing the van. To Juarez’s knowledge, the van driver had not committed any violations.

10-11 – Juarez did not ask for authorization to make a hot pursuit, and he had never had a hot pursuit before so he had never asked for authorization. Juarez never saw Ramos activate his emergency lights during the pursuit.

11-12 – Juarez identified GOV EXH 51B as “the location where the incident took place.” Using GOV EXH 51B, Juarez located he parked near the canal/drainage ditch and where he entered the canal. He went in the canal and slipped halfway down, but he never got in the water. Juarez also used GOV EXH 51B to locate where Compean was standing.

12-13 – The driver of the van was fast. He jumped quickly over the canal. The driver was so quick that he dodged the shotgun that Compean swung at him and ran away.

13-14 – Using GOV EXH 11 – a diagram – Juarez identified the approximate locations where Ramos, Juarez, and Arturo Vasquez parked their BP vehicles near the canal, and where Compean’s vehicle was parked on the levee. Juarez also identified where he stepped into the canal. [GOV EXH 11 was offered but the Court sustained an objection to its admission.]

15 – BP agents are trained to use a baton and to use a shotgun as a baton. They can use either one.

15-16 – Juarez exits the canal and walks to the van. As he is halfway between his vehicle and the van, he hears shots and turns around. [Juarez reviews GOV EXHS 9, 10, 12 and 15 and uses GOV EXH 9 to locate where he was when he heard the shots fired.] There were more units arriving when the shots were fired.

17 – Agent Lorenzo Yrigoyen was parked near Compean’s vehicle, which had a camper shell.

17-18 – Juarez heard shots – “there were a couple of fast, boom, boom, boom” – and that made him turn. He saw Compean shooting. Compean was halfway down the levee between the vega and the levee. Juarez could see Compean from the waist up, because Compean had already started going down the other side of the levee.

18-19 – Compean was holding his gun in the “fire stance position” [demonstrating] that is used “when you are ready to shoot.”

“A. He was like this. And, of course, boom, boom, boom, boom. And that’s when I noticed he dropped — something black dropped. And I noticed there was a pause. Then he reached over to do a magazine exchange. And after that, it was boom — two. And after that he disappeared.
Q. When you say he disappeared —
A. South. I could no longer see him at all.”

18-19 – Juarez identified GOV EXH 19A, a magazine like he saw drop out of the handgun. Juarez did not count the number of times Compean fired but there were a lot of rounds. A magazine has 11 rounds plus one in the chamber, so there were “at least 11 rounds” fired from the first magazine.

19-20 – BP agents are not trained to shoot to maim. They are trained to shoot to stop the threat – to hit “center mass” to kill and stop the threat. Agents are qualified quarterly by firearms instructors on “the Beretta, the small arms plus the shotgun, and the M-16.” Compean was one of Juarez’s firearms instructors.

20-21 – Firearms instructors teach how to react to the threat. The “first reaction” they tell you to watch is the hands because the hands indicate the threat.

21-22 – Juarez just stood there when he heard the shots. Juarez did not pull out his weapon because he did not feel there was a threat to him. The driver was almost in Mexico. Juarez did not fear for Compean because he had a shotgun, “a pretty lethal weapon.”

[NOTE from DRJ: Did Compean have a shotgun at this time? He had a handgun but he had dropped the shotgun.]

22-23 – Juarez has seen aliens run back to Mexico “very often.” He did not hear Compean or anyone else yell stop.

23-24 – Juarez could not see Compean any more after he shot. Shortly after, Juarez saw Ramos and Compean walking together from the vega to the levee. Juarez did not see Ramos go to the vega but he saw Compean running there and he saw them walk back together. They were close enough to talk but he did not see them talking.

24 – Compean asked Juarez where his shotgun was, and Juarez told him it was in the canal. Compean got his shotgun while Juarez walked to the van.

24 – Juarez scratched his hands and got dirty going into the canal.

24-25 – Ramos and Compean did not yell gun or mention a shiny object when they returned. They did not mention anyone shot at them. No one yelled “take cover.”

25 – Juarez used GOV EXH 9 to show where the shooting occurred.

25-26 – Compean did not shoot from behind pr take cover behind his vehicle.

26 – Ramos jumped over the ditch and joined Juarez at the van. Ramos looked excited, like “we got the van, like happy.”

26– Juarez did not mention the shooting when he returned to the station. To his knowledge, no one mentioned the shooting to a supervisor.

26-27 – Juarez’s FTO (Field Training Office) was Agent Compean. An FTO trains each new agent for 6 weeks in the basics and proper procedure.

27-29 – The government interviewed Juarez about this incident several times. Juarez did not tell the truth when he was first interviewed in March 2005 and in April 2005. Juarez did not tell them everything because “he was a selfish person” – he was concerned about getting a reputation as a snitch at the BP station.

29 – When Juarez first arrived at the ditch, Ramos’ car door was open.

29-30 – [GOV EXHS 9 and 11 offered, subject to redaction of extraneous markings. The Court ruled that the exhibits should be redacted first and could then be resubmitted.]

Ramos’ cross-examination (by Mary Stillinger):

30-31 – Juarez and Stillinger have never spoken. Juarez received a letter from the investigator asking to talk to Juarez as a potential witness in the case. Juarez called the investigator but refused to speak with him about the case. Juarez was not under orders from his employer not to speak about the case. He chose not to.

32 – Juarez is still a BP agent in name only. He gets a paycheck but can’t do immigration checks.

32-35 – Juarez met with C. Sanchez on March 18, 2005. Sanchez gave Juarez a signed proffer letter, and Juarez signed the letter, [DEF RAMOS EXH 12] just prior to Sanchez’s interviewed Juarez. Under the terms of the agreement, Juarez had to tell the truth and nothing he said could be used against him. It was in Juarez’s interest to tell the truth and, if he didn’t, he could be prosecuted for a felony of making a false statement to a federal agent. The agreement protects Juarez if he’s truthful but not if he lies.

35 – On March 18, 2005, Juarez was interviewed by C. Sanchez and also wrote out a statement. In his hand-written statement, Juarez swore that he told the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Juarez said that statement was truthful except when he claimed that he didn’t witness the shooting.

35-36 – Later, C. Sanchez talked to Juarez again to go over his statement. C. Sanchez reminded Juarez to tell the truth.

36-37 – The first time Juarez met with C. Sanchez, Juarez was in shock. C. Sanchez was professional but Juarez was shocked at the shooting. The interview happened a month after the shooting and Juarez was not in shock the entire month, just the interview. Juarez was not scared but he was worried about being prosecuted.

37 – Juarez never changed his story about Agent Ramos. The only part of Juarez’s statement that changed was his admission that he witnessed the shooting.

37-39 – Juarez’s duties as a BP officer are, first, to stop illegal immigration by patrolling the border. It is illegal to cross other than at a port of entry, even if you are a US citizen. That is called entering without inspection and Juarez believes it is an administration offense but not a criminal offense. If the person has no criminal record, he will be returned voluntarily (RV). The BP agents have a right to stop any person entering illegally. The agent should identify himself as BP and ask the person his status.

39 – Another BP duty is to stop terrorists from entering the country.

39-40 – BP agents also have a duty to stop drug smuggling if they see it or have reasonable suspicion that it occurred, but the DEA primarily handles it. It would be dereliction of duty to see smuggling and not do anything.

40-43 – “76” refers to a sensor in area 3. [Defense counsel offered and the Court admitted without objection a US Geological Survey map of the Fabens area marked DEF RAMOS EXH 7.] Juarez generally located sensor 76 on the map. It is located in a farming area on a dirt road that goes along a drainage ditch.

43 – One might expect to see a van in a farming area. Getting a call on sensor 76 does not necessarily mean there is illegal activity but it does need to be checked.

43-44 – Compean called out a code 46, the 10 code for narcotics. Compean called out information that led Juarez to believe he has reasonable suspicion that a drug transaction has occurred with a van around Area 76.

44-45– Juarez thought Compean first called about a minivan but that’s not what the repeater transcript said. Compean may have called first on the local channel. Juarez doesn’t know how Compean called but Juarez heard “minivan” and “46”, and neither is on the transcript.

45-46 – When Compean’s call came through, Juarez was “pushing back” a group of illegal immigrants:

“A. Pushing back is holding the line, not letting the aliens come across illegally. You have to be high profile. And once you’re high profile, they will not attempt to come in.
Q. Okay. And how large a group are we talking about?
A. It was getting — starting with ten. And then it started getting bigger and bigger.
Q. Really?
A. Yes.
Q. And, really, what you do is you — when you say you make yourself high profile, you make yourself seen to these people, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. To, basically, let them know don’t try it. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you ever find that sometimes when somebody is smuggling drugs, they may also create a diversion somewhere else on the border to take your-alls attention away?
A. I’m sure. They’re smart people.”

46-51 – Juarez used the map marked DEF RAMOS EXH 7 to locate the CC Bills gate and to plot the route he traveled in following the van. They call the roads Lower, Middle, and Upper Island.

51 – Juarez wasn’t looking for a particular color of van. Juarez was looking for a minivan and so he had doubts whether the van he saw was the right one. There is a big difference between a minivan and a van, but Juarez followed the van because it was the only vehicle coming out of the area.

51-53 – The van was going fast when Juarez first saw it. It was the only van Juarez saw and he assumed it was speeding. Those facts made Juarez suspicious. At that time, Juarez was the only BP vehicle following the van. Juarez went fast to follow the van while he called Compean to tell him he saw a full-size van. Compean said that could be the one and confirmed that it might not be a minivan.

53-56 – Juarez put on his lights almost at the intersection in Fabens. Using DEF RAMOS EXH 9, Juarez identified the location he turned on his lights and where he saw Ramos’ vehicle.

56-57 – The driver of the van did not actually stop at the red light in Fabens. He was driving slow and the light changed to green before he had to stop. The van was going fast after Juarez turned the lights on. Juarez thought the van was going to pull over but Juarez guessed the driver changed his mind because he hit the gas and made a left turn.

57-58 – The driver of the van was committing a felony offense by smuggling marijuana, although Juarez didn’t know that when he first started following the van. However, Juarez did have a reasonable suspicion that the van had committed a felony offense.

60 – Juarez turned on his lights because he wanted to stop the van as part of his duty to make a valid investigatory stop. The van didn’t pull over and instead sped up. The van driver was trying to evade Juarez, and then it became a pursuit.

61-62 – Ramos joined the pursuit after the van driver made 3 left turns, and Ramos became the lead vehicle in the pursuit. Ramos did not signal Juarez to turn off his lights right away. He waited until they exited the residential area.

62-63 – BP vehicles have red and blue emergency flashing lights on the top and on the front. Juarez turned off his emergency lights. He could not tell from the back whether Ramos had his front emergency lights on.

63 – After Ramos picked up the lead position in the pursuit, Juarez could hear Ramos calling out what he was doing on the radio but that was not on the transcript because it was car-to-car transmissions.

63-64 – The van was continually taking evasive action and did not slow down.

64 – There is no designated signal for cut your lights off. Juarez just thought that’s what Ramos meant.

64-65 – Pursuit means following a vehicle that won’t stop, regardless of whether you are going fast or slow. [Obligatory OJ reference here by counsel.]

65-67 – A supervisor is designated responsibility for pursuits. Juarez isn’t sure whether it is the higher or the immediate supervisor. Juarez did not call a supervisor for permission to pursue.

67-68 – Supervisors monitor radio traffic and this area is close to the station where the supervisor monitors the radio traffic. Juarez has heard radio traffic in the station, but only tower transmissions. The car-to-car transmissions come in as static and have dead spots. The repeater avoids the dead spots.

69-70 – Juarez explains how a pursuit works:

“Q. Okay. But — I’m sorry. Let me back up to where I was. When you are engaged in a pursuit, are you supposed to pull over and stop and call your supervisor and say let me explain these facts to you. Do I have a permission to continue this pursuit? What are you supposed to do?
A. For the pursuit?
Q. Yes.
A. The book dictates you have to call a supervisor to authorize it.
Q. Okay. And how are you supposed to do — when you’re driving down the road, all of a sudden this guy starts, you go, he’s not pulling over. He is getting away from you. I’m asking realistically, how do you do that? How do you call into the supervisor? Are you supposed to stop and get permission before you continue?
A. You’re supposed to notify the vehicle is failing to stop. And then the supervisor will ask you how fast are you going, ask you to estimate the speed of the unit — I mean, correction, the vehicle —
Q. Okay.
A. — in the pursuit.”

70-71 – Juarez did not purposefully violate the pursuit rules when he failed to call it in to a supervisor. It was his first pursuit and he was excited. He was focusing on the van and trying to do his job.

71-72 – The van, Ramos and Juarez were going fast on the road. Juarez did not see any people or cars on the road but he was focusing on the van. The circumstances of his speed was dangerous but he didn’t see anyone that was endangered.

72 – The van and the BP vehicles did not go 60 mph on the S curve, only on the straightaways.

73-75 – Juarez thought he saw 2 other BP vehicles on the side road. They were not together and he didn’t see who they were. Juarez was driving a pickup truck and he couldn’t see if they followed him.

75 – Once they moved to the dirt road, Juarez could see the dust from the van and from Ramos’ vehicle but he couldn’t see the van. He couldn’t see how close they were but he could see balls of dust.

75-76 – Juarez was no longer on the radio because he was not the eye – the lead pursuer. He wasn’t the vehicle taking responsibility for the chase.

76 – Juarez did not see Ramos pull up. The drivers’ side door was open and Ramos was gone when Juarez got there. Juarez didn’t see Ramos but he wasn’t concentrating on him.

77 – Juarez did not see the driver of the van go into the ditch. He got out of this vehicle and went to see what was happening. Juarez figured the driver was going back to Mexico.

77-78 – Juarez saw the driver in the ditch before he crossed the water. The water in the ditch smells and that’s why they call it Sierra Delta. Juarez assumes its sewage water. The ditch is bushy and deeper than a person is tall, but the water isn’t that deep. The ditch is steep on the sides and that’s why Juarez slipped and fell.

78-81 – When Juarez saw the driver in the ditch, no one was saying anything. There were engines running. The driver looked up and saw Juarez and that’s when the driver crossed the water. That happened after Juarez slipped. Juarez wasn’t able to see well when he slipped but he recovered and that’s when he saw the driver jump the water.

81 – Juarez never drew his weapon that day.

81-85 – Juarez thought the point was to push the driver back to Mexico and not let him stay in the US. He would not want to detain the driver for investigation:

“Q. Okay. Well, under these circumstances, though, where Compean has called out potential narcotics, the guy has led you on a pursuit, don’t you think you would want to detain the person to investigate?
A. Not really.
Q. Okay. You wouldn’t want to?
A. Right.
Q. And why is that?
A. Like I said, he was almost in Mexico. Not only he was in the United States, but going that far back, he almost made it.
Q. Okay. If you had been Agent Compean, what you’re saying, you would have just stepped aside and let the guy go?
A. Well, I don’t know if he likes to process aliens. It’s a lot easier to take the load and go back to the station.
Q. Right. And what you mean, you’re talking about the load of drugs that were in the van, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Agents like to be able to take credit for getting a load, don’t they?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, aren’t statistics kept at work about how many pounds of marijuana or cocaine you have participated in seizing?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So that’s like — well, that’s like getting a gold star, that’s a good thing at work, responsibility for getting a load, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you get the same kind of reward or recognition for catching the driver?
A. No, it’s the load.
Q. Okay. It’s the load. That’s what’s emphasized, right?
A. What I have seen.
Q. And from what you have seen, have you seen that happen where people just let the driver go so that they don’t have to do the paperwork?
A. They bring the loads without driver, a lot. And then there’s a few people that get, you know, loads with the driver.
Q. Okay. And is that why you didn’t go help Compean because you assumed he was going to let the driver go?
A. Yes.
Q. And, Agent Juarez, is that the policy of Border Patrol to — to let someone go back to Mexico when you suspect they’ve been involved in a drug offense?
A. No.
Q. Would you agree that things are a little lax there in Fabens as far as doing the paperwork?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. But you’ve seen this happen before, right, this isn’t the first time, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that’s why you assumed, in fact, that Compean didn’t need your help, because he wasn’t going to stop this guy, right?
A. Yes.”

85-87 – Juarez would help Compean if he thought he needed it. Juarez thought the driver looked small but he was young, fast, and wiry. The driver was taller than Compean but Compean had the shotgun and that lets the person know, don’t run. But this driver saw the shotgun and ran anyway:

“Q. Thank you. And so what you’re saying is this man is not following the normal course that we expect which is when the officer has a gun, we expect the person to stop?
A. I thought he was going to surrender, that’s why they met halfway up there. Compean moves and then the driver moves to meet halfway, that’s when he picked up the butt of the shotgun.
Q. Okay. Well, I have to ask you about that because you say he’s moving very fast to run up to the officer to surrender.
A. See, he zig-zagged. He went across. And then he went towards the direction of Compean. That’s how he moved halfway there.”

87-89 – Juarez might have heard someone say “Parate [Stop]” and he thought the driver was running over to surrender to Compean, but he didn’t stop. Juarez saw the driver using his hands to climb out of the ditch, and it would be hard to climb out with his hands in the air because the ditch is steep. When Juarez climbed out, he had to reach to the ground to get out.

89 – In Juarez’s statement to C. Sanchez, he said he heard gunfire but it might have been hunters or the Mexican military shooting. Juarez has experienced this by the river.

89-90 – Juarez was anxious to get back to the van and see what was inside. He hoped there weren’t aliens inside that were being smuggled. It could have been terrorists or narcotics. Juarez hoped it was drugs but he just wanted to see what it was.

91 – Juarez didn’t go to the van until Ramos and Compean had returned. Juarez was the first to open the van. Juarez did not see Agent Vasquez arrive but he was there. Vasquez had not opened the van. He was there to secure the van.

92 – It was seconds between the time the driver bolted south and Ramos and Compean returned. Everything happened quickly.

92-94 – Juarez did not talk to anyone about the shooting while they were there, but he remembers someone shouting out “shots.” Juarez could not see what was happening as he exited the canal. Once Juarez got out of the canal, the driver was gone. Juarez never saw the driver with a firearm but Juarez did not see the driver from the time he left the canal and went over the levee road. In addition, Juarez did not see the driver cross the vega and the Rio Grande.

94-95 – Juarez saw Compean fall and then get up to follow the driver. Compean left the shotgun there and is running after the driver. Juarez turned to climb out of the canal and didn’t see anything else. During this time, Juarez never saw Ramos until he returned with Campeon from the levee road.

95 – Juarez didn’t notice if Ramos was wet from the knees down. He did not interview Ramos and Compean because Juarez was ‘the junior guy”:

“Q. That wouldn’t be any part of your job to do that?
A. Oh, no. I’m the junior guy. How can I do that to them?”

95-98 – If he didn’t have immunity, Juarez believes he could be prosecuted for not telling the truth to C. Sanchez when he first interviewed Juarez. Juarez believed he could be in trouble for a hot pursuit without a supervisor’s approval, but that’s a policy violation. Juarez did not purposefully fail to report the shooting because he was trying to cover up. Juarez did not believe he was committing a criminal offense by failing to report the shooting.

98-99 – [Court recess.] Counsel jointly requested an extended lunch break after completion of this testimony.

Compean cross-examination (by Chris Antcliff):

100-102 – Juarez had been a BP agent for about 1-1/2 years on February 17, 2005, when this occurred. He was interviewed by C. Sanchez and 2 more investigators on March 18, 2005, after signing an immunity agreement. Juarez was placed on administrative leave the next day because of the pending investigation. Juarez does not believe he did anything wrong on February 17, 2005.

102-103 – On February 17, 2005, Juarez was on the levee near Martinez Farms holding back a group. The group was 10-12 and growing. They were on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, across the vega from Juarez. Juarez stayed where he was to make his presence known so they wouldn’t come across. Juarez left when he heard Compean’s call. He does not know what happened to the aliens. They could have come across.

103-104 – Juarez drove on several roads but eventually he entered the town of Fabens. The light was changing to green as the van approached it and it was green when Juarez went through. Juarez never told anyone that the light was changing to red when the van approached it.

104-105 – Juarez gave 2 statements to C. Sanchez, one on March 18, 2005, and a supplement on April 25, 2005. They were both hand-written and done at a time when the events were fresh in Juarez’s mind. Juarez gave a third statement six months later in September 2005.

105-108 – Juarez claimed that the only mistake or lie he told in the first statement was his failure to report the shooting. However:

– In the first statement, Juarez said he went to the van and did not enter the ditch, but now he claims he was in the ditch and several things happened before he went to the van.

– In the first statement, Juarez never mentioned Compean trying to hit the driver with his shotgun, but now he claims that Compean tried to hit the driver at least once.

– [Referring to DEF COMPEAN EXH 5, Juarez’s 3-18-05 statement:] In his first statement, Juarez never mentioned seeing the driver in the ditch, but now he claims he did see the driver in the ditch.

109 – Juarez parked very close to the lip of the canal and ran straight into the canal after he got out of his car. [Referring to GOV EXH 10, a photo of the van near the canal:] Juarez admitted he had to move around his car to enter the canal after he got out of his car.

110 – Juarez slipped in the ditch and went almost halfway down. Juarez did not think it was an important thing to say when he gave his first statement.

110-112 – In his second statement to C. Sanchez:

– Juarez said he saw Compean and the driver about 6-8 feet apart when he arrived. Juarez said that is the same as his testimony today.

– Juarez said he saw the driver use both hands to exit the ditch, but today Juarez testified that the driver was getting out of the ditch with both hands raised.

– Juarez said he went straight from his car to the van, but today Juarez testified he went to the ditch first.

– Juarez admitted lying when he said he did not see Compean shooting at the driver.

112 – Juarez admitted there were more lies in his statements than the fact he did not report the shooting.

112-114 – Juarez had a lawyer when he gave the second and the third statements at the US Attorneys’ office. Juarez stated that “Mr. Sanchez, Mr. Jose, Mr. Weiser, and [Juarez]” were present. “Mr. Jose” refers to the prosecutor, Jose Luis Gonzalez. They told Juarez that they didn’t believe his statement because it didn’t make sense, and they wanted to know the truth. Juarez was told that if he didn’t tell the truth, he would be indicted for making a false statement. He could go to jail for that crime.

114-115 – Juarez didn’t make a hand-written statement in September 2005. Juarez talked and they wrote it down.

115-116 – The whole area of Fabens is a known drug and illegal alien smuggling area, including the 76 area. The blue/gray van was a suspicious vehicle and Juarez believed he had a reasonable suspicion to stop the van. Juarez’s suspicions were elevated when the van didn’t stop after Juarez turned on his emergency lights.

116-117 – Defense counsel suggested that BP policy says the first car in a pursuit is the eye or lead vehicle, and the second vehicle is responsible for radio calls. Juarez testified he always thought it was the first car that is responsible for radio traffic.

117-118 – Juarez attended the BP academy in Charleston SC and was trained in BP policies. Juarez is unaware that the second vehicle in a pursuit was responsible for radio traffic. Juarez did not take over radio traffic on February 17, 2005. He left that to the eye – the lead vehicle, Ramos.

118-119 – To talk on the radio, you have to hold the microphone in your hand. When you drive and use the radio, you hold the microphone in your right hand and the steering wheel in your left hand.

119 – Juarez did not go all the way down to the ditch into the water because it’s nasty.

120-121 – The driver put his hands up before Compean took a swing at him. He raised his hands when he reached the top of the canal. Juarez was about 8-10 feet away and watched as the driver jumped over the water and ran up the other side of the canal.

121 – Juarez never drew his weapon that day. He did not notice when other agents arrived but he knew they were getting near. Juarez is trained to apprehend aliens.

122-123 – Compean was on top of the ditch. Juarez heard Compean say “Parate, Parate.” Juarez heard others yelling but he doesn’t know what. He never heard Compean yell obscenities at the alien, just telling him to stop in Spanish. Juarez never heard Ramos yell Parate. Juarez doesn’t know where Ramos went or what he was doing.

123-125 – When he went to the van, Juarez first opened the driver’s door of the van. He smelled a strong odor of marijuana. Looking in the driver’s door, Juarez could see the bundles in the back of the van. Juarez checked for weapons because that’s what he is trained to do. Then he started to secure the load. He opened the passenger doors and saw it was “full of dope.” He didn’t find any people. Juarez was excited because it was a big load. This was not Juarez’s first drug seizure but he was excited.

125-127 – Other agents were arriving, including Vasquez, Mendoza, Jacquez, Richards, Roberts, and Medrano – all the agents in the area came – plus Juarez, Ramos and Compean. A total of 9 agents. The shooting was over by the time everyone arrived.

127 – Vasquez was the first agent on the scene after Juarez.

127-128 – Juarez has discharged his weapon at a snake in the Fabens district and did not report it, even though Juarez was aware of the policy to report the discharge of a firearm. Part of Juarez’s immunity is for the crime of failing to report the discharge of a weapon.

128-129– Nobody asked Juarez not to report the shooting. It was his own decision.

129 – Juarez thought Compean was going to let the alien go:

“Okay. I think it was your testimony, and I’m not certain of this, that you thought Agent Compean was going to let the alien go because he didn’t want to do paperwork. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you done that before?
A. That’s what it’s called pushing them back. When they see you, they run back. So you just want to make sure they go back south.
Q. I think your testimony was that on February 17th out in the Martinez Farms, you were pushing aliens back that day?
A. Yes.
Q. Had they crossed over the river?
A. Yes, because they play with you. What you do is if there’s another sensor, then you move. And then once you see, you move. That’s when they come across. And then you come back and then they go back. If —
Q. I understand. Is it kind of scary out there?
A. Yes.”

129-130 – Juarez has run into hunters and the Mexican military shooting in Fabens, and he’s apprehended aliens coming into the US. Juarez never “got a load under [his] belt” by being the primary agent to apprehend drug smugglers. He had hoped that would happen that day.

130-134 – Compean was on top of the lip of the canal when he fell and his shotgun fell in the canal. Compean fell head first into the canal. [The parties reviewed various exhibits to get a photo of the area between the canal and the levee. Referring to GOV EXH 28:] Juarez testified the distance between the top of the ditch and the levee is approximately 20 feet.

135 – Juarez told C. Sanchez that the shotgun was found in the canal.

135-136 – Compean took one swing with the shotgun when he lost his balance and fell. Juarez first told C. Sanchez this in September 2005, after he was threatened with an indictment for lying.

136-137 – Juarez thought the alien was trying to surrender on February 17, 2005. Juarez thought he was trying to surrender when he went toward Compean. From the time Juarez entered the ditch until the alien was gone, it was 5-10 seconds. Juarez lost sight of the alien once he went over the levee onto the vega.

138 – Juarez saw the stop half of Compean shooting at the alien but he couldn’t see the top half of the alien.

139-140 – Juarez first saw the alien on the north side of the canal, before he crossed the water. The alien went toward Compean. Juarez thought he was surrendering but he did not say that in his first 2 statements.

141-142 – Juarez used the repeated channel on February 17, 2005, but not everything he said was copied. Sometimes they were on the local channel.

142-144 – Agent Vasquez arrived before Juarez looked in the van. Juarez told Vasquez that Compean’s shotgun was in the canal. Vasquez went to look with Juarez in the van and they looked in the van together. They looked under the seats for weapons, and they found a cellphone. Vasquez was excited, too.

144-145 – Under Juarez’s immunity agreement, the government alone decides whether Juarez has been truthful and whether he will be prosecuted. Juarez believes he can only be prosecuted for lying.

Government re-direct (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):

145 – At his September 26, 2005, meeting with the government regarding immunity, Juarez came with his attorney Mr. Weiser. No one told him what to say.

145-146 – Juarez has never met or talked to Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila and has never read his reports. No one has ever told Juarez what Aldrete-Davila has said.

147 – DEA has primary responsibility for enforcing the drug laws. When the BP finds drugs, they call the DEA to take over the load.

148 – Juarez didn’t know there were drugs in the van until he inspected it.

148-149 – Juarez was looking for a minivan, not a full-size van, so he thought that wasn’t the vehicle. In Juarez’s 1-1/2 years of experience, smugglers don’t use any particular type of vehicle.

149-150 – Juarez almost ran into Ramos when Ramos pulled in front of him to follow the van. Juarez did not expect Ramos to pull in front because Juarez was leading the pursuit. Ramos made movements that meant “get out of the way. Let me take over.” Ramos never got on the radio and said “turn on your emergency overhead lights.”

151-152 – Juarez understands the rules to mean that the one who is behind the pursuit has the responsibility to call in the pursuit. At first, for about 10 minutes, that was Juarez but he didn’t call it in. The pursuit started in Fabens when the alien failed to stop for Juarez’s emergency lights. Then Ramos took over the pursuit. Juarez never heard Ramos call in the pursuit.

152 – BP agents aren’t allowed to engage in pursuits because of safety. Citizens could get hurt.

152-153 – Juarez allows aliens to flee back to Mexico because, if it’s a big group, it’s safer for him and it means less paperwork. Juarez doesn’t like to do paperwork.

153-154 – On February 17, 2005, the supervisors at Fabens were Thomason, Roberts, and Johnathan Richards. Richards is upper management. Supervisors Arnold and Richards are not lax with policy or paperwork. They like everything to be done properly – by the book – especially Richards.

154-155 – The Mexican military has never shot at Juarez. Juarez has arrested aliens but they have never had a weapon. Agent Compean never told Juarez that an alien was displaying or brandishing a gun.

155-156 – Regarding the alien’s hands:

“Q. Now, let’s take you back to the top of the levee, that’s your testimony about the alien going up the south side?
A. Yes.
Q. Does he have his hands raised?
A. Not all the way, but about here.
Q. To his face?
A. Yes.
Q. Open palm?
A. Like this.
Q. Open palm?
A. Not like that. But like this.
Q. Okay. And he has his hands raised at what point?
A. When he got almost real close to Agent Compean.
Q. Okay. And then does his position change? Does it — he’s got his hands raised. Does it go from side to side at that point?
A. Made a complete move — the movement.
(Witness demonstrating.)
Q. What do you mean?
A. To move around for the blow.
Q. So he’s dodging the blow, trying to avoid the blow. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But before he ducks, he’s coming straight up to where Agent Compean is. Is that correct?
A. Yes.”

156 – Juarez never saw the alien look back.

157 – Juarez never saw the alien stop running.

157 – Juarez didn’t shoot his weapon on February 17, 2005.

157-158 – To Juarez’s knowledge, Supervisor Richards was available on February 17, 2005, and he was at the scene right away. The immediate supervisor was Roberts. At least one supervisor has to respond to the scene.

158 – Juarez was not in fear for his life on February 17, 2005.

158 – Juarez’s and Ramos’ cars were left running at the scene.

158-159 – Juarez found a cellphone in the van.

Ramos re-cross examination (by Mary Stillinger):

159 –

Q. Agent Juarez, when you met with Agent Sanchez and Jose Luis Gonzalez, the prosecutor, in September of last year, was Mr. Gonzalez yelling at you the way he was yelling at you now?
A. Yes, he was very upset.
Q. And he was sharing his personal opinion that he didn’t think your story made sense. Is that correct?
A. Yes.

159-160 – It was always in Juarez’s best interest to tell the truth but he didn’t until Mr. Gonzalez told Juarez that he didn’t believe his statements. Juarez’s attorney Mr. Weiser told him he could be indicted.

161 – Ramos took the lead because he was already pointed in the right direction to follow the van. Juarez still had to slow down to make a right turn.

162-164 – Juarez was surprised when Ramos didn’t follow the van at the stop light and when Ramos took the eye going south. Ramos never called in “I got it.”

164 – The supervisors never knew there had been a pursuit. The supervisors knew the agents were trailing a van but “if they knew there would have been a pursuit, then they have to — you have to let them know your speed, location, and what’s the weather like.”

Even a slow O.J. pursuit is a pursuit because he didn’t stop when he was told.

“Q. Okay. And your supervisors knew that there was a pursuit that day, didn’t they?
A. They knew we were after a van.
Q. Right.
A. If they knew there was a pursuit, then they have to terminate. They only have the discretion of saying terminate it. That’s why a lot of agents don’t like to call it a pursuit. Then they have to — if the supervisor says terminate, regardless what’s in there on the load, it could be cocaine, marijuana, the alien smugglers, doesn’t matter, if they tell you terminate regardless of what’s in there, you have to do it.”

165-166 – Supervisors will let you pursue if you can do it safely.

166 – Juarez didn’t know the driver was committing a crime until he saw what was in the van.

166-167 – The supervisor arrives right away when there is a seizure, and Supervisor Richards arrived at this scene promptly. He was already on his way before Juarez opened the van. So he also thought there was a load in the van.

167-168 – After his supervisor arrived, Juarez did not tell him there had been a pursuit and Juarez did not know of any radio traffic that there had been a pursuit.

“A. All I remember is Mr. Richards arrived. And he was kind of upset because of lack of radio traffic.
Q. Uh-huh.
A. And he also mentioned that he said “we need to start getting the driver more often for now.”
Q. Okay. Okay. So I guess he’s not in favor of the Fabens policy of tending to let people just go back to Mexico?
A. No. He already gave notice to stop a pattern for that. We need to get the driver.
Q. Didn’t he say that you guys did just a pretty good job?
A. That is a good job. I want to make sure we’re trying to get the driver.
Q. Okay. Right. And, basically, he was congratulating you all on your good job, right?
A. Yes.”

169 – Juarez thinks Supervisor Richards is a “by the book” guy and he knows that, when Juarez does paperwork, Richards checks it thoroughly.

169 – Juarez agrees that the BP is the primary agency stopping drug traffic along the border between the ports of entry. Indicting drugs is the BP’s secondary job.

170 – If the van had stopped in Fabens, it would have been Juarez’s first 46 stop.

171 – Juarez failed to report the discharge of a firearm but he wasn’t trying to cover it up. He was worried about being singled out as a snitch.

173 – Nobody told Juarez not to report the discharge of a firearm.

Compean re-cross examination (by Chris Antcliff):

174 – Agents don’t call out a felony, they call out a 10 code, and Juarez heard a call for a 10-46 on February 17, 2005.

175 – Juarez was trained to be careful apprehending a subject because he might have a weapon.

175-176 – Juarez didn’t talk to Ramos and Compean after they came back. He never saw the other agents draw a weapon. The alien never rushed at Juarez – he was always trying to get away.

176 – Juarez doesn’t know who the cellphone in the van belonged to.

176 – Juarez doesn’t think agents have to get approval for a pursuit but that supervisors monitor radio traffic and can terminate a pursuit.

176 – Juarez’s testimony is that he gave 2 written statements that were not true and 1 oral statement that was true.

Government re-direct examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):

177 – Juarez met with his attorney and told him what happened before he met Gonzalez on September 26, 2005. Then Juarez met with C. Sanchez and Gonzalez and told them what happened.

177 – Supervisor Richards was not told that shots were fired or that someone had been shot on February 17, 2005.

Compean re-cross examination (by Chris Antcliff):

178 – When Juarez told his attorney his story before September 26, his attorney told Juarez he would be indicted.

Government re-direct examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):

178 – Juarez’s attorney told Juarez to tell the government what happened, and that’s what he did.

Compean re-cross examination (by Chris Antcliff):

179 – The threat that Juarez would be indicted came from the government.

[Pass the witness.]

57 Responses to “DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts — Oscar Juarez (Vols. VIII and IX)”

  1. I only found two O.J. references in the TX. Vol. IX at 64:4 and 165:4. Is there another?

    I’ll trade in the bonus points for a prize – the chance to be the first to thank you for such a thorough summary. Many thanks!

    Tracy (b404ed)

  2. Can someone enlighten me? Was the road where the persuit took place a country road assigned a CR number? Was there a posted speed limit sign? Texas has certain country roads where a speed limit IS posted, otherwise, the speed limit is 70. When leaving a town/city the speed limit signs would progress from 35, to 45, to 55 to the state limit of 70. Juarez testified that they were traveling between 60-65 mpr. At 70 mph, the agents would not have been violating the excessive speed limit rule place on them by BP requiring supervisory permission.
    One other thing about Juarez’s testimony (it is just a small thing): he states that because it is a farming community, vans are common. While this may be moot, I do not know one farmer/rancher that drives a van. One ton pick-ups would be more common. Ever try to hitch a cattle trailer to a van?
    Drive through south Texas and you will see pickups, SUVs and cars. Very few vans.
    It disturbs me that it is BP (DHS) policy to not try to apprehend drivers of loads. So what if the runner loses the load. There is more what that came from. But catch the driver and you have a lead into who is doing the shipping and from where.
    Why was Prosecutor Gonzales yelling at Agent Juarez when he was on the stand? Was this to let Juarez know that they had him by the short hair and if he did not testify to the prosecutions satisfaction he would be prosecuted himself? Juarez admits he has given different stories and that he was threatened with prosecution by the U.S. attorney’s office. Could this be considered witness intimidation by the U.S. attorney?
    Also, I am still bothered by the license plates. OK, let’s say the plates were stolen (common practice in south Texas) but there is a VIN that can be traced. Who did the van belong to? Was it stolen?
    It seems to me that there was very little effort to learn of the nature of this drug deal.

    retire05 (b7fd38)

  3. The van was not in Mexico on that day, and the government makes no contention that it was ever in Mexico, but the government’s argument is that the driver was an illegal immigrant who was trying to get back to Mexico.

    Why would they expect the border agents, or those of us who are contemplating the incident from the border agents’ perspective, to make the baseless assumption that the driver was an illegal Mexican immigrant?

    Is it because Davila didn’t have blonde hair and blue eyes when they saw him in the ditch?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  4. Something like that, Jose Curtis…

    Poopstain (56001e)

  5. If these guys are directing smuggling tactics, and consider “Border Patrol Agent hunting parties” an option as Aldrete-Davila claims, hopefully CIA/NSA (or whoever) is tapping their phones and monitoring them. Probably not, considering Bush’s tone of extreme tolerance which permeates DHS.

    > there is a VIN that can be traced.
    Same thing with the cellphone found in the van, and its call history.

    Wesson (c20d28)

  6. Tracy,

    Exactly right, and what a gracious winner you are.

    DRJ (605076)

  7. Retire05,

    There were no CR numbers provided for the roads involved in the pursuit (except for Alameda which is apparently TX 20), but there were speed limit signs on these roads. For instance, Government Exhibits 45-51 discussed/admitted in Volume VII were all photos of various speed limit and traffic signs on Fabens Road.

    As for anecdotal reports of vans, I live in West Texas and I frequently travel in rural West Texas. We have vans all over the place.

    Perhaps Prosecutor Gonzalez was trying to intimidate Juarez but it’s also possible he was irritated that his witness was performing poorly on the stand. Gonzalez has had repeated instances of leading the witness. He may be controlling and manipulative or he may be inexperienced. I can’t tell but his co-counsel, Debra Kanoff, seems to be the lead prosecutor and that suggests Gonzalez is younger and may be inexperienced. I’m interested in how old he is, if anyone knows.

    I share your concerns regarding the DHS/Border Patrol policies and their performance on the border.

    DRJ (605076)

  8. Wesson, not only can the call history of the cell phone be traced, but the actual purchase of the phone itself can be traced.
    So the prosecution could learn the history of the vehicle (who bought it as new and every subsequent owner since then) as well as the history of the cell phone, even if it was a disposable phone.
    But it seems our government is more interested in prosecuting law enforcement officers when they find out that the southern border is not a utopian gardenland instead of stopping those who want to bring their poison to our kids.

    retire05 (b7fd38)

  9. Give full pardons to those two border patrol agents arrest that drug smuggler and revoke his imunity and have those thugs who beat one of those agsnts ent to the gallows and hanged

    krazy kagu (3e8790)

  10. 8 – The driver of the van had not yet committed any felony violations when the van was first pursued in the downtown Fabens area or when Ramos and Juarez were chasing the van. He had not yet committed a misdemeanor violation.

    Fleeing a federal agent isn’t “felony flight”? Not even a misdemeanor?

    Is Bush’s justice department contending this or just allowing Juarez to lead the jury into believing that fleeing a federal agent in an attempt to escape to Mexico isn’t a major felony?

    If I tried to flee federal agents in an attempt to escape to Mexico would it be a felony?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  11. J Curtis:

    Fleeing a federal agent isn’t “felony flight”? Not even a misdemeanor?

    Not according to this agent. This agent believes the point is to “push back” the aliens into Mexico and that illegal entry is an administrative but not a criminal offense. Defense counsel disagreed with Juarez’s view (and I disagree, too) but it’s interesting that that’s what Juarez believed and/or was taught.

    DRJ (605076)

  12. Gonzalez is not that young. He’s been there since at least since 2000 and he is the Chief of Border Interdiction of the El Paso Office. Debra Kanof is Chief of Major Crimes.

    It appears that the heavyweights of the office were thrown at Compean and Ramos.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  13. Not according to this agent. This agent believes the point is to “push back” the aliens into Mexico and that illegal entry is an administrative but not a criminal offense. Defense counsel disagreed with Juarez’s view (and I disagree, too) but it’s interesting that that’s what Juarez believed and/or was taught.

    Comment by DRJ

    The larger point here is that Bush’s justice department was attempting to plant the perception, using Juarez, that it isn’t a crime to flee a federal agent in a motor vehicle in an attempt to escape to another country.

    What is known at this point, during the chase, is that the suspect is a felon in a vehicle with Texas plates who seems to be determined to escape from the United States.

    We can reasonably suspect at this point that the suspect is a Texan who has an illegal load of something, probably drugs, in his van.

    It is not known at this point if the suspect has ever been to Mexico.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  14. Gonzalez has been practicing since 1984 according to the state bar website.

    Some witnesses are difficult to deal with because the don’t know how to answer questions. Literally. They don’t really listen to what’s being asked and their answers aren’t exactly responsive. Gonzalez may have been frustrated with Juarez – but he could have asked permission to lead the witness if the difficulty was obvious. [Seemed borderline to me.] It may also be that although he’s been a lawyer for many years, trial work is not his forte. People often rise to the top not because of talent in the courtroom but because of seniority and administrative ability.

    Kanof has been a lawyer since 1978.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  15. Tracy,

    I can’t remember which witness this involved, but at one point it seemed that Gonzalez wasn’t capable of asking a non-leading question. Maria Ramirez kept objecting, the judge would sustain, and he’s ask the question again–in a leading manner. Then, it appeared that the judge would get tired of sustaining objections and just let him do it. Ramirez appeared, at one point, just to give up on objecting.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  16. Jerri and Tracy,

    Thanks for providing that information. Gonzalez is almost as old as I am and I can’t blame my problems on inexperience.

    Tracy, I agree some witnesses are difficult and Juarez probably was a frustrating witness for the government. However, Gonzalez had repeated problems with leading questions with both of his witnesses – Juarez and Aldrete-Davila. Unfortunately that wasn’t clear in my summaries because I did not name the lawyers in my earlier posts.

    In fairness, framing appropriate questions is a hard technique to learn and it could also be that Gonzalez does not have much trial experience as Chief of Border Interdiction.

    DRJ (605076)

  17. Having said that, it’s no excuse. If you are going to be a litigator, you have to follow the rules and that includes the rule against leading questions on direct.

    DRJ (605076)

  18. I agree that he was leading throughout – or that the objections were there, anyway. I have to admit that sometimes I disagreed that the questions were leading. Often they obviously were – many other times though, it didn’t seem leading to me. That said, even though he was called a “heavy-hitter”, I don’t think he seemed all that skilled.

    Mary Stillinger REALLY impressed me. She did a fabulous job at the sentencing. Very eloquent and fluent in the law. Ramos can’t complain that he wasn’t well-represented.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  19. The government’s entire case is built on a series of logical fallacies and outright deceptions.

    They needed to lead their witnesses by the ear to steer them around the landmines.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  20. Here’s a link to google-maps of the area. Zooming the satellite view is kind of interesting. Juarez first saw the pot-filled van travelling into town on Jess Helms Rd, then Fabens Island Rd. Then when Juarez tried to pull him over on Alameda Ave, the van sped back to the border via Fabens Island Rd, then Jess Harris Rd.

    Any guesses on the exact location where the shooting happened at the levee and irrigation canal at the border? It’s somewhere close to the intersection of Jess Harris Rd & Wingo Reserve Rd, and that “well used” dead end road on the other side of the river. “drug war”, my ass.
    Google Maps – Jess Harris Rd, Fabens TX

    Wesson (c20d28)

  21. Tracy,

    As I can tell you know (but I’ll say anyway for those who might not), the attorney who offers a witness cannot ask leading questions except in special circumstances. The opposing attorney can ask leading questions since it’s not his witness and is presumed hostile – hostile as in adversarial, not enraged or angry.

    One of the reasons for this is that the evidence should come from the witness, not the attorney. In addition, the attorney offering the witness can talk to and prepare the witness for his testimony. Thus, even if Gonzalez’s witnesses were young, nervous, spoke English as a second language, etc., they should still provide testimony directly. Thus, IMO Gonzalez should not have used or been permitted to use leading questions to the extent he did.

    Frankly, it was my impression that Gonzalez was often the one floundering for words, not his witnesses. He seemed intent that they say what he wanted or expected them to say. That strikes me as a normal consequence of someone who doesn’t litigate often. I’m sure I would do the same thing in a criminal proceeding, but that’s no excuse. We need testimony to come from the witnesses and not the attorneys, especially on direct, and it concerns me when one attorney is given extra leeway.

    Finally, I’m not quite at the point where I can agree with you about Mary Stillinger but I’m willing to withhold judgment until final argument. She is good and is clearly shouldering the heavy load of lead defense counsel, but sometimes she asks one too many questions – violating the old saw about never asking an opposing witness a question where you don’t know the answer. As a result, some of her cross-examinations have ended on a down note.

    However, I plan to send my law-school-bound son a copy of Chris Antcliff’s cross-examination of Oscar Juarez. IMO, that was some high quality cross-examination.

    DRJ (605076)

  22. So what if Davila had not committed a “felony” offense. Did he not run a stop sign? Don’t know about other posters but in my town that will get you pulled over. Run from the officer trying to pull you over for a traffic violation and you are going to be intercepted by the sheriff’s department. So yes, Davila did break the law causing him to be signaled to pull over. He did’t.
    Sutton states that there was no way to prosecute Davila. Hell no, he was their golden haired boy who was going to take down two BP. Why would they prosecute him? Why take down a drug dealer who is bringing poison into our nation when you can make a name for yourself by taking down law enforcement officers?
    It was clear that Juarez felt the other BP agents had things under control (they were going to just let Davila return to Mexico) but Juarez was pumped over the load. I can tell you right now, I would not want to have to depend on this agent to cover my back. The load was not moving. Mr. Drug Runner was.

    As to Gonzalez yelling at this own witness: isn’t there such a thing a badgering? Why would he badger his own witness unless he was not getting the testimony he wanted, true or not. Sounds to me like he was letting Juarez know that if Juarez didn’t come through, the threats made by the prosecution to file charges on Juarez would become reality.
    Wonder how Juarez feels now that he was fired.

    retire05 (b7fd38)

  23. I thought I read somewhere that 2 or 3 of these agents were recently fired or let go. I assume it was Vasquez, Juarez, and maybe Mendoza. Is that correct and does anyone have a link?

    DRJ (605076)

  24. 18

    I thought this portion of Mary Stillinger’s closing argument was ill-advised (vol 15 p.49):

    3 And when you think about it, use your common sense in
    4 this. If a person gets pulled over, even for a traffic
    5 offense, and the officer for some reason — maybe he has some
    6 heightened suspicion, but the officer for some reason comes up
    7 and says, Put your hands on the steering wheel, where I can see
    8 them. Put your hands on the steering wheel, where I can see
    9 them.
    10 And you don’t do it. You say, No.
    11 Put your hands where I can see them.
    12 And, instead, you reach for your phone, because you
    13 want to call your lawyer. What do you think is going to
    14 happen? You might get shot in the head, is what might happen.
    15 And you know what? You might be a completely innocent person
    16 who was having a bad day and didn’t feel like doing what the
    17 officer said.
    18 That would be a justified shooting. Because, you know
    19 what? That officer has a right to tell you to put your hands
    20 where he can see them, and he has a right to defend himself, if
    21 he thinks you’re going for a gun.
    22 So these men would have no problem justifying that
    23 shooting.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  25. DRJ,

    This part was interesting. Gonzalez clearly didn’t like it when Juarez mentions the felony flight that occurred.

    Gonzalez tries to deceive the jury into believing that a felony has not yet occurred by steering Juarez back in the direction of unknown felonies, that being the cargo, as a way to obfuscate the known felony. He never actually tries to counter the claim that the flight is a felony.

    Here’s the transcript and then a lawyer question if I may:

    1 Q. And I believe you also told Ms. Stillinger that you saw a
    2 felony had been committed. Is that correct?
    3 A. Can you repeat that?
    4 Q. That the van had committed a felony.
    5 A. Yes.
    6 Q. At what time did that van commit a felony?
    7 A. Only when he — the person, the driver, failed to stop.
    8 MR. GONZALEZ: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
    9 THE COURT: You may.
    10 BY MR. GONZALEZ:
    11 Q. This the van that you saw on February 17, 2005?
    12 A. Yes.
    13 Q. Can you see what’s inside that van?
    14 A. No.
    15 Q. Why not?
    16 A. Because they were tinted windows and curtains on the side.
    17 Q. So you didn’t know if there were aliens, children, what in
    18 this van, did you?
    19 A. That’s correct.
    20 Q. When did you find out that there was drugs in this van?
    21 A. That’s when we — when I get there and opened up the doors.
    22 That was the first time.

    Could the defense have asked for a point of law, if that’s the correct term, to establish that there was a felony in progress at this point?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  26. J Curtis,

    I think that’s a very good question because I know from experience how attorneys and their clients want to correct something right then that they feel is wrong. However, I think opposing counsel only has 2 or maybe 3 choices in this situation:

    1. Object if there is a basis to say that the testimony is not proper – for instance, if it is not relevant, hearsay, or violates a ruling the Court has already made (such as a ruling on a motion in limine). I don’t think this falls into any of these categories.

    2. Wait until your chance to examine the witness and attempt to correct the misstatement through questions. This isn’t always easy to do and, worse yet, sometimes the original thought gets stuck in the jurors’ minds and it’s hard to erase. It’s something like reading a story on p 1 of the newspaper and then reading the correction the next day. The first sticks more than the second.

    3. Object, but only if you have a plausible reason, to disrupt the flow of the testimony and hopefully make the nature of your concern clear right then so the jury is aware this may be questionable testimony. The hard part is finding a plausible reason because judges don’t like grandstanding, and getting slapped down by a judge too much will ruin your reputation with the jury for the whole trial. That’s probably why we haven’t seen more objections during the trial. The attorneys, and especially the defense counsel, have worry about preserving error without alienating the jury.

    In the case of Juarez, my feeling is that the defense successfully discredited his testimony and were able to communicate to the jury the issues that mattered to the defense. I think that’s part of why Gonzalez raised his voice with Juarez, because Juarez went along with whoever asked him a question and damaged his value to the prosecution.

    The one thing we can’t tell from the transcript is the feel of the courtroom. Jurors bond with certain people in the courtroom – they like and dislike certain people, and it’s often obvious. If the jury liked Gonzalez, they would tend to view the defense counsel’s objections as picking on him and get irritated at the defense. You always have to worry about that and be careful that you balance what you can do with what you should do.

    Ultimately, the jurors probably didn’t like Ramos and Compean when they testified. My gut is that they didn’t like the way Compean fired so many shots and they didn’t like/trust Ramos’ appearance. Here’s one small example: Almost all Tourette’s victims blink excessively. It’s called a tic and it’s just part of the disease. Even the US government Defense Procurement Agency [link blocked as spam so I’ll leave the URL below] recognizes that excessive blinking is a nonverbal cue that most people perceive as dishonesty. So every moment Ramos sat in his trial and blinked excessively, and I’m almost certain he did if has Tourettes’s, he sent a nonverbal message to the jury that he couldn’t be trusted.

    Defense Procurement link: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpaptest/contractpricing/vol5chap5.htm

    DRJ (605076)

  27. BTW, J Curtis, I think Gonzalez’s point was that the agents didn’t know the van was loaded with dope until they inspected it. Thus, while they may have suspected drugs were involved, they didn’t know that until later.

    DRJ (605076)

  28. “21.A. That’s when we – when I got there and opened up the doors.”

    I believe this is the second time that Juarez says “we” and then corrects himself to “I”. Why would that be?

    retire05 (b7fd38)

  29. […] Co-produced by Grassfire.org, which has collected more than 300,000 signatures on the related petition. One of Patterico’s guestbloggers is reviewing the trial transcript systematically to determine whether this really is the snow job the agents’ supporters claim or whether it’s more Tancredo shenanigans. I’ll let you know when he renders his verdict. In the meantime, I’m still hazy on why, precisely, the U.S. Attorney would want to frame them. It’s not earning him any friends in CBP; it’s putting his boss in even hotter water on immigration than he’s already in; and, if he’s found to have acted unethically, it’s putting his own career at risk. So why do it? […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: “Pardon Ramos and Compean” (d4224a)

  30. Retire05:

    I believe this is the second time that Juarez says “we” and then corrects himself to “I”. Why would that be?

    I think it’s because the questions were directed to Juarez and he was trying to answer them as they applied to him but in fact he and Vasquez had looked in the van together.

    Specifically, Juarez testified that Agent Vasquez was the next agent on the scene after Juarez, Ramos and Compean. (Vol. 8, p 127) and that Vasquez was the agent that secured the van (Vol. 8, p 91). Juarez also testified that he and Vasquez looked in the van together (Vol. 8, p 142-144).

    DRJ (605076)

  31. BTW, J Curtis, I think Gonzalez’s point was that the agents didn’t know the van was loaded with dope until they inspected it. Thus, while they may have suspected drugs were involved, they didn’t know that until later.

    Comment by DRJ

    Juarez wasn’t referring to the unknown felony about the cargo; he was referring to the known felony, the felony flight:

    Q. And I believe you also told Ms. Stillinger that you saw a felony had been committed. Is that correct?

    A. Only when he — the person, the driver, failed to stop.

    Gonzalez then attempts to obscure the fact that there was a known felony in progress by changing the subject and focusing on the felony that has yet to be confirmed and is only a reasonable suspicion at this point.

    Gonzalez wants to and needs to create the perception that there is none-zero-nada felony going on at this point.

    This is one of the big deceptions that the prosecution relied on to convict the agents.

    This works conjuctively with the other big deception which is that there should have been an assumption of Davila’s non-citizenship status by the agents. The benefit of which is based on our cognitive conditioning that illegal aliens are above the law.

    Then there are several smaller deceptions and numerous logical fallacies to reinforce the battle plan.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  32. J Curtis,

    I think part of the problem was Juarez’s view that the border patrol agents were basically playing a game. He called it “pushing back” and he even told Ms. Stillinger on cross-examination (Vol. 8, p 37-39) that crossing the border illegally is an administrative offense, not a criminal offense. Juarez seemed to take the same attitude toward the chase back to the border. He seemed to be saying: Some days you lose and some days you win.

    Specifically, Juarez testified that the only reason he wanted to stop the van was to do an immigration check. (Vol 8, p 159-160). He also testified the goal of the Border Patrol was to push the driver back to Mexico and not let him stay in the US. (Vol 8, pp 81-85).

    My point is that you can find quotes from Juarez that say almost anything you want them to because he floated with whoever was examining him. Juarez’s testimony was all over the board because he didn’t have a firm grasp of what he was supposed to be doing as a Border Patrol agent.

    DRJ (605076)

  33. I think Juarez was supposed to be their star witness. A Non-threatening and relatable presence for this jury and with a name that would invoke some hometown love.

    The jury was supposed to identify with his carefree attitude about border matters and he was supposed to frame this incident as a matter of “pushing back the alien”, even though this was a known felony incident and probable multi-felonies based on probable suspicions awaiting to be verified. Nothing like the “game” at the river he was referring to earlier.

    Then he goes and blows everything by testifying that there was a felony in progress ( the flight ). Ouch. But hey, they got their conviction so maybe he gave them enough.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  34. I agree that Juarez was probably a disappointment to the prosecution but I’m not sure I agree he was their star. He had given the government 2-3 versions of what happened in 3 separate statements. They knew he could be impeached and they probably also suspected he might not tell the same story twice.

    Actually, Juarez struck me as a tragic figure – he was obviously sad and sometimes mad about what he lost, but he didn’t seem to realize why it happened or how he contributed to it. I think that was Juarez’s value to the prosecution. It made the jury think about how Ramos and Compean’s actions cost several young men their careers and maybe, just maybe, it made the jury willing to punish them for it.

    DRJ (605076)

  35. DRJ, how would the jury view the situation as costing several young men their careers? The other BP were on administrative leave (with pay) because of the investigation and the trial. The jurors had no way of knowing that those three agents would wind up losing their jobs (two were fired and one quit knowing he would be fired). I have know several APD that have been on administrative leave during investigations (the investigation of Hector Palanco was one) and they were taken off the street and had to push pencils for a while. They didn’t lose their jobs.
    But what does come out of this trial is the fact that our BP are under orders to let drug runners return to Mexico. What does that acheive? So what if we get the “load”? Yes, it keeps the junk off the streets, but it also allows the drug runners to try again and give no information as to where the junk is coming from. So let’s change the senario up just a little: we have a Hispanic looking male trying to smuggle a dirty weapon into the U.S. Is the goal to only capture the weapon and not worry about the smuggler?

    retire05 (b7fd38)

  36. Actually if you read the later testimony, it appears the agents were not “instructed” to let the smugglers escape, so much as they found the administrative chore of processing them unexciting/unglamorous compared to grabbing “the load”. Defendant Ramos was particularly forthright on this point in his testimony or statement. At one point he said, in effect, “I don’t do illegal immigrants”.

    On the other hand, the supervisor of the office in question, at least according to the testimony of one of the agents, encouraged them to try to nab the suspects as well as the herb.

    What stands out clearly (I just read 90% of the transcripts after Juarez’s testimony) is that there are extremely serious training and professionalism issues in the Border Patrol, at least this particular field office.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  37. LagunaDave,

    I think you’re right about the training issues. Based on what I’ve read so far, it’s clear the agents had different ideas about the BP rules and the agents’ duties, and how they were to perform their duties. I haven’t read Ramos’ and Compean’s testimony but I imagine it’s more of the same or they probably wouldn’t have been convicted.

    DRJ (605076)

  38. Retire05,

    This incident cost them their careers because they were all on administrative duties. Even if they managed to stay employed, their career advancement chances had to be severely damaged and I think most jurors would realize that.

    DRJ (605076)

  39. DRJ, I think the most damaging part of Ramos and Compean’s testimony is that they both admit they knew they were supposed to report firing shots but didn’t. Neither had any sort of reasonable explanation. There were other dubious parts of their testimony but the failure to report really looks bad in my opinion. Bad training may explain the failure to follow the rules for pursuits but they knew they were supposed to report shooting at people.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  40. James B.,

    I’m glad you said that because it reminded me of one other item regarding LagunaDave’s comment and, by implication, your comment. I agree the agents should make the required reports and perhaps these agents learned that the hard, hard way.

    But the BP rules and the way they are administered are convoluted and it’s unfair to blame the agents for everything that results from those policies. For instance, based on what I’ve read here and in other sources, the rules require that a weapons discharge be reported but it must be an oral report. I have a suspicion why that’s the rule but it’s not business-like or an inherently reliable procedure.

    In some ways it seems the BP thinks it’s in the traffic ticket business instead of law enforcement and/or national security.

    DRJ (605076)

  41. For whatever reason, I’m unable to master the art of posting a link here.

    As to the current status of the agents – in response to commment 23 – see the El Paso Times, 2/19/07 article “1 quits, 2 other border agents fight for jobs”.

    Sorry I’m inept at providing a direct link.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  42. vol 7
    111-113 Aldrete-Davila identified GOV EX 54 as a photo of the area where the altercation with the agent occurred. The agent did not attempt to use pepper spray or a baton on Aldrete-Davila.

    vol 8
    15 – BP agents are trained to use a baton and to use a shotgun as a baton. They can use either one.

    And later, during Compean’s grilling, the government asks him over and over again about his baton and asks about the pepper spray. They did this to plant the idea in the jurors’ heads that he had other weapons choices.

    I’m not sure it was ever pointed out to the jury that once you have the shotgun in your hands, there is no way to holster it and switch to some other weapon. That’s why you are taught to use the shotgun as a baton.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  43. I am having trouble with the link mentioned in 41 also. The article says that Juarez has quit, and that Vasquez and Jacquez are resisting termination. They both implicated themselves in trial testimony (especially Vasquez) so I doubt their chances of saving their jobs but in the meanwhile they are still being paid.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  44. JCurtis,

    Either Vasquez or Juarez, I can’t remember which, testified that they are trained to use shotguns as batons when necessary. If Compean was truthful that Aldrete-Davila kept coming at him (and in fact Aldrete-Davila did admit that he took at least one step towards Compean after being told to stop) it seems possible to me the Compean was using the shotgun in the way he had been trained–as a baton.

    I’m not sure what all one does with a baton, but I assume you can use one to push someone down or back.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  45. J Curtis,

    That’s a good example of a contradiction in the testimony. Defense counsel earn their living by catching and pointing out those inconsistencies. Sometimes they miss them or, in the example you provided, it’s hard for them to raise the issue at the time. We might see points like that raised in closing arguments.

    I’ve been having trouble with links the past couple of days, too. This may be the link for the El Paso Times article:

    Add http: to the front of this – //www.elpasotimes.com/search/ci_5256711

    DRJ (605076)

  46. DRJ, I think the most damaging part of Ramos and Compean’s testimony is that they both admit they knew they were supposed to report firing shots but didn’t. Neither had any sort of reasonable explanation.

    That was my impression as well. Also, I think Compean got a stiffer sentence in part due to his active efforts to conceal/dispose of his spent casings and have another agent retrieve the ones he didn’t succeed in collecting himself.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  47. 46

    Compean also shot first and fired many more rounds. My theory at the moment is that Compean was mad that he had fallen on his face trying to hit OAD and then that he had been unable to catch up with him and that he fired the shots with the intent of at least scaring the $%&*. He doesn’t realize Ramos is anywhere near. Ramos who hates drug dealers comes charging up and fires one shot just because Compean was shooting. This knocks OAD over and Compean, shocked, asks Ramos what the heck he is doing, he just wanted to scare OAD. While they are discussing this OAD recovers enough to get away. At which point Compean and Ramos decide that maybe they don’t really need to report this shooting.

    I should also note that the judge granted Ramos but not Compean a downward departure from the guideline sentence based on the behavior of the victim. She did not explain her reasoning on this point at least in the transcript.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  48. James B:

    Right, concerning the departure for behavior of the victim, that’s what I was wondering about.

    One possibility: it was far more obvious to Compean that the OAD was trying to elude, rather than harm, him. When Compean had stumbled and dropped his shotgun while trying to knock OAD back into the ditch, there was an opportunity to shoot him or otherwise attack him, but OAD instead took advantage of the fall to run around him. Later, when Compean tackled him, OAD managed to escape the grapple while Compean was still on the ground. Again, he did nothing threatening, but bolted south again.

    Ramos, OTOH, only saw OAD climbing up the ditch toward his colleague, and later (allegedly) saw Compean on the ground after Ramos had crossed and climbed out of the ditch himself.

    So between the two of them, the judge may have determined that Ramos had better reason to believe OAD was a threat, having not seen that he twice took advantage of Compean’s falls to flee.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  49. LagunaDave,

    Would it also be plausible to believe that Aldrete-Davila would have done anything to get away? He admitted in testimony that he didn’t think that the ROE would allow the BP agents to shoot him as he was trying to get away–which makes me believe that he was willing to keep advancing on Compean even in the face of a shotgun. He fights Compean when tackled. Why wouldn’t he be willing pull a gun to prevent or deter the agents from continuing after him?

    More importantly, isn’t it reasonable that Compean might have believed Aldrete-Davila was willing to do anything to get away– from tackling Compean on the levee, fighting Compean when he was grabbed– to pointing a gun and shooting Compean to prevent him from continuing to pursue?

    As for Aldrete-Davila falling down–the agents may not have seen that–if he did, indeed, fall from a bullet. The brush out there was probably waist-high (I’ve seen the brush in that part of the country) and for all they knew the guy was crouching and hiding or running low to the ground until they saw him emerge into the fields on the way to the road where the van that picked him up was located.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  50. I haven’t read everything and I know many of you have, but I agree that the agents’ failure to report was a problem. It smacks of a cover-up. Americans are a forgiving people but they don’t like cover-ups.

    DRJ (605076)

  51. I haven’t read everything and I know many of you have, but I agree that the agents’ failure to report was a problem. It smacks of a cover-up. Americans are a forgiving people but they don’t like cover-ups.

    Comment by DRJ

    Ramos and Compean would be dead if they had reported it.

    Their names would have been on BPETS and Davila’s hunting party would have went after them.

    Americans don’t like it when Bush’s beloved Mexican drug cartels assassinate border patrol agents. Last I checked.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  52. J Curtis,

    I haven’t decided yet what I think about this case (probably because I’m so far behind everyone else in reading the transcripts!), so I wasn’t trying to make a point about what should have happened. My point was that people in general, and juries in particular, don’t like cover ups.

    It helps me to discuss all viewpoints because I’m trying to keep both sides in mind as I summarize the transcript. I understand your point and I think there is a related point that occasionally surfaces in these transcripts.

    Specifically, Juarez and Vasquez both stated they were the junior guys and not in a position to question or second-guess what Ramos and Compean did. It reminds me of the military, and I think there are many parallels between law enforcement and the military. I think your view is consistent with this, too.

    DRJ (605076)

  53. My point was that people in general, and juries in particular, don’t like cover ups.

    Comment by DRJ

    Naturally, if they don’t understand why something has been covered up.

    There are often good reasons to cover something up. Sometimes there are malicious cover ups masquerading as legitimate cover ups; such as the motion in limine in this case.

    I think we’ll be learning of many cover ups having happened in this case. The one that has gotten all the attention, the incident report, is the one that reasonable people will empathize with.

    The government could argue:

    “Well, sure the agents and their families would be dead if they had reported the incident, but they had no way of knowing that at the time”.

    Even Tony Snow would refuse to go out and say that and I don’t think Johnny Sutton will be giving anymore interviews.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  54. Would it also be plausible to believe that Aldrete-Davila would have done anything to get away? He admitted in testimony that he didn’t think that the ROE would allow the BP agents to shoot him as he was trying to get away–which makes me believe that he was willing to keep advancing on Compean even in the face of a shotgun. He fights Compean when tackled. Why wouldn’t he be willing pull a gun to prevent or deter the agents from continuing after him?

    According to Compean’s own testimony, the alleged gun appeared in OAD’s hand when he was already far away and had essentially made good his escape. Similarly, Ramos claimed that he had time to get off only a single shot before OAD disappeared into the riverside brush. Neither of the agents, according to their own testimony, were attempting to chase OAD at that point, so it seems to me that stopping to turn around and take a potshot at agents that were no longer pursuing him would have made his escape less likely, and exposed him to greater risk. OAD had seen Ramos and knew there were other agents nearby. Stopping to start a gunbattle with multiple BP agents when you are almost to the river and they haven’t shot at you yet (according to Compean’s story – according to OAD, Compean was already shooting as he fled across the open area leading to the river) doesn’t make much sense.

    OAD’s testimony that he believed the agents wouldn’t use lethal force on him rings true, but that would certainly cease to be the case if he started shooting at them.

    Actually, OAD denied there was any wrestling match, and we only have Compean’s word that it occurred. The prosecution poked some holes in his description of it – he claimed they tumbled down the rocky slope of the levee, but he suffered none of the cuts or torn clothing that one would have expected. Also, Juarez testified that he saw the upper half of Compean’s body near the top of the levee, firing at OAD, while Compean claimed the shooting started only after they had rolled down the slope, where there is no way Juarez could have seen any part of him while he was firing.

    More importantly, isn’t it reasonable that Compean might have believed Aldrete-Davila was willing to do anything to get away– from tackling Compean on the levee, fighting Compean when he was grabbed– to pointing a gun and shooting Compean to prevent him from continuing to pursue?

    Nobody claimed OAD tackled Compean on the levee or anywhere else. Compean testified that as soon as he stumbled at the edge of the ditch, OAD shuffled to the side to put distance between them so he could go around. The alleged melee near the levee is problematic for the reasons mentioned above. And Compean was not in pursuit when he claims OAD turned and revealed a gun.

    As for Aldrete-Davila falling down–the agents may not have seen that–if he did, indeed, fall from a bullet. The brush out there was probably waist-high (I’ve seen the brush in that part of the country) and for all they knew the guy was crouching and hiding or running low to the ground until they saw him emerge into the fields on the way to the road where the van that picked him up was located.

    That is not the most problematic part of the agents’ story, but it hinges on other elements that do not seem consistent or credible to me. That said, it is hard to believe that many law enforcement officers in that situation, knowing that backup was arriving, and believing that a suspect just involved in a shoot-out might be nearby with a gun, would have just walked away without investigating further.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  55. Ramos and Compean would be dead if they had reported it.

    Their names would have been on BPETS and Davila’s hunting party would have went after them.

    Americans don’t like it when Bush’s beloved Mexican drug cartels assassinate border patrol agents. Last I checked.

    So your theory is: Ramos and Compean knew of a conspiracy between corrupt BP agents and drug smugglers, and believed that shooting at a low-level “mule” involved in smuggling a few thousand dollars of pot would be a death sentence for them. So rather than exposing the vast Bushitler conspiracy which they supposedly had full knowledge of, they consciously decided to commit felonies by covering up the evidence that they had discharged their weapons lawfully? And similarly, during the trial, they must have decided that 10+ years behind bars was a better alternative to blowing the lid off this conspiracy.

    Apart from wondering why no evidence of this was presented in court, I have to wonder then – why did they confront OAD at all?

    None of this makes any sense unless Ramos and Compean, all the other agents who testified, and the prosecutors too, were also parties to the conspiracy. In fact, *you* may be only one who isn’t…

    🙂

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  56. LagunaDave, you said:

    “Nobody claimed OAD tackled Compean on the levee or anywhere else.”

    I realize that. What I am saying is that Compean may have believed that OAD was going to do that as he continued to advance on Compean. Compean, may have believed the guy was capable of anything, heightening his reactivity to him.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  57. LagunaDave,

    Is it your contention that the lives of Compean and Ramos and their families would not have been at risk if the agents or their supervisors had made made a formal report of the weapons discharge?

    J Curtis (d21251)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1035 secs.