Patterico's Pontifications

2/22/2007

DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts – Jose Luis Mendoza (Volume X)

Filed under: Crime,General,Immigration — DRJ @ 10:57 pm



Volume X of the transcript begins on Monday morning of the second week of trial. Prior to the start of testimony, the Court considered 3 matters in a bench conference: First, Aldrete-Davila was released from custody and excused as a witness. The second and third matters both involved Rene Sanchez and memos – the Karhoff memo and the Blanchette memo. Of the two, the Blanchette memo seems to be the more explosive but it’s not clear if we will hear about this again during the trial.

The first witness called on Monday morning was Border Patrol agent Jose Mendoza. Unlike the earlier agents, Mendoza did not sign an immunity agreement for his testimony, although he apparently did receive a Garrity letter that conveys immunity from criminal charges but not administrative penalties. Here is the testimony of Jose Mendoza:

From Transcript X:

1-10 – [The Court considered 3 matters in a bench conference:]

1. The government had Aldrete-Davila in a hotel in custody. He is now in a hospital because of problems with his catheter. The parties agreed to let him go because they do not need to recall him, and are advising the Court accordingly. Defense counsel reiterated their position regarding immunity and Aldrete-Davila’s Fifth Amendment rights, but in light of the Court’s ruling agreed not to recall him. The Court declined to change its prior ruling that, since Aldrete-Davila has taken the Fifth, he can’t be questioned about that. Thus, Aldrete-Davila is released.

2. Ramos’ counsel had requested a memo from BP Field Operations Supervisor Russell Karhoff, supervisor of Rene Sanchez in Willcox AZ, regarding report of alien shot being shot by agent. The government tendered the report to the Court, claiming it was not Giglio since Karhoff was not called to testify, nor did the government see it as Brady material. Defense counsel had not seen the report but wants to see it because of credibility concerns regarding Rene Sanchez, who claimed he did not talk to Aldrete-Davila regarding a lawsuit while Aldrete-Davila says R. Sanchez suggested a lawsuit. The Court took this matter under advisement.

3. The government raised the issue of another memorandum dated 7/7/05 written by Ysleta BP agent Nolan Blanchette to his supervisor, Benjamin Robinson, regarding information provided to Blanchette by Rene Sanchez regarding drug trafficking in the area. The government believes defense counsel will use this memo to suggest that Rene Sanchez is a drug dealer and that’s why he knows too much about border drugs. The government represented that it was rigorous in its Giglio obligation with regard to Rene Sanchez, both locally and in Washington DC, and “there was absolutely no Giglio.” In anticipation of a fight over this matter, the government tendered a copy of the Blanchette memo to the Court. Compean’s counsel responded that the memo was provided under continuing discovery obligations but the defense has no plans to use it at this time.

Witness #9 – Jose Luis Mendoza:

Government direct examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):

9 – Jose Luis Mendoza has been employed by the US Border Patrol for 6 years. His duties were to patrol the border and enforce US immigration laws.

9-10 – Mendoza was on duty on February 17, 2005. He has been interviewed about the events of that date on several occasions. One of his first interviews was with C. Sanchez. Mendoza did not ask for a letter of immunity and “is here of [his] own free will.”

10-11 – Mendoza has been placed on administrative duty but he did not know that/why* until the prosecutor [Gonzalez] told him yesterday.

[NOTE from DRJ: The answer was unclear whether Mendoza didn’t know *that* he was on administrative duty or he didn’t know *why* he was on administrative duty. Later testimony (Vol. X, pp. 41-42) suggests that Mendoza had been on administrative duty since March 2005 but he didn’t know *why* until the trial.]

11-12 – On February 17, 2005, Mendoza was assigned to [Fabens station] Zone 3 that extends from the Stubbs compound to west of Grijalva, where the Ysleta station takes over. Mendoza identified GOV EXH 84, a photo of the area near Jess Harris Road. Mendoza was working west of that area.

12-13 – Mendoza identified GOV EXH 1, a photo that includes Zone 3, the area where Mendoza was working on February 17, 2005. This area is near La Vaca Street.

13-14 – Around 1 PM, Mendoza heard Compean call out a van coming from the NE corner of the Stubbs compound, an area notorious for drug and alien smuggling. Mendoza 10-4’d the call and “waited north on Chicken Ranch and Hole in the Wall” about a 1-1/2 miles west of where Compean saw the van. Mendoza was waiting for the van to come by but it didn’t. Mendoza then cut through the pecan orchards at Stubbs compound to look for the van when he heard someone he thought was Arturo Vasquez say he had the west [Stubbs compound] area covered. Mendoza did not see the van cutting through the pecan orchards, which are north of where Compean had reported the van.

14-15 – Mendoza heard Ramos “call out the traffic” saying that he had a visual on the van in Fabens. Ramos must have used the local traffic since it wasn’t picked up on the tower when they checked the radio traffic.

15 – Mendoza heard Ramos report that the van made a sudden U-Turn and was heading back south. Mendoza did not see the van but he had an idea which way it was going – that it was going to hit the S curves on Jess Harris and come in Mendoza’s direction.

15-18 – Mendoza identified his location on a map marked GOV EXH __ [not identified]. He was on a ditch road near Island Road (paved) and Island Guadalupe Road (dirt). Mendoza also identified the pecan orchard and the Stubbs compound on the map. Mendoza thought the van might have taken a road near the pecan orchards that runs north to Alameda. There is no pecan orchard near the S curves but there are pecan orchards near Fabens Road.

18-19 – Mendoza first saw the van when he was at Rawls Road and Island Road. Mendoza was moving at the time he saw the van about ½ mile east on Jess Harris Road (which becomes Fabens Road as it nears town). Mendoza had a clear view of Jess Harris Road from where he was located. He could not tell how fast the van was going – “maybe 65, 70 tops” – because he didn’t have a radar gun with him.

19-21 – Mendoza saw 3 [BP] units behind the van. The van and the first unit were about 2-3 car lengths apart. The second unit was about 2-3 car lengths back of the first unit. They are all going fast. The third unit was a little further out – about 5-6 car lengths back. Mendoza followed them but he still had to make a few turns so he “didn’t actually have a chance to get into the action.”

20 – Jess Harris Road changes to a dirt road at the intersection of Jess Harris and Wingo Reserve Road.

21-22 – When Mendoza reached the end of Jess Harris Road at the canal, all the [BP] vehicles were parked behind the van. Mendoza got off his truck and left it running. He did not hear shots fired. He saw the van with the driver’s door open and agents Vasquez and Jacquez were around the van.

22-24 – Vasquez said a shotgun was on the ground on the other side of the levee. Mendoza might have glimpsed over there but he didn’t see the shotgun, although he didn’t look hard. He wasn’t concerned because there were 2 agents there. Mendoza, Vasquez and Juarez looked in the van to see what was in it. Vasquez and Juarez looked excited and Mendoza was excited about the van and its contents, but “this is a normal thing for us over there in Fabens. So it was just another drug seizure for us.”

23-24 – Mendoza doesn’t recall being told that Nacho (Ignacio Ramos) was on the other side of the ditch. He does not recall being told about a shooting.

24-25 – Then agent Jacquez showed up from the north side and agent Yrigoyen showed up on the levee, coming from the east end from the port of entry. Jacquez parked behind Mendoza’s unit, and Yrigoyen parked by Compean’s vehicle on the levee. Mendoza does not recall talking to Jacquez but, if he did, it was about the van being loaded.

25 – The supervisors – Robert Arnold and Field Operations Supervisor (FOS) Jonathan Richards – arrived after Jacquez. Mendoza thinks agent Lance Medrano arrived after that.

25-26 – Yrigoyen was with his trainee, Rene.

26 – Ramos and Compean were on the other side of the levee while Mendoza was there:

“Q. And, at some point in time, does Agent Ignacio Ramos arrive where you’re standing?
A. No, not at all. The whole time that we were there, Nacho and Compean were on the — on the other side on the levee.”

27 – But Mendoza also said that only Agent Ramos came back while he was there:

“Q. So then — I’m sorry. You said that Compean and Ramos never joined you guys, or — while you’re there?
A. Only Agent Ramos. When he came back to the other side, our FOS, Jonathan Richards, was already there.”

26-27 – Mendoza identified Ramos and Compean in the courtroom.

27 – Mendoza said Ramos seemed nervous and looked “shooken up” when he came back. Mendoza knows that Ramos has Tourette’s Syndrome. Mendoza couldn’t tell if Ramos was different that day but FOS Richards did ask Ramos if he was okay. Ramos said he was fine but pumped up from the adrenaline.

27-28 – Compean stayed on the other side of the ditch the whole time.

28 – Richards told Mendoza to load up the van contents and take them back to the station and process them. They suspected it was marijuana but they weren’t sure until it was tested at the station. Mendoza didn’t do anything else at the scene. He was the first one to leave the area. He went back to the Fabens station.

28-29 – Mendoza assumed that Ramos and Compean had chased the van driver south toward Mexico in an effort to “ap” [apprehend] him. Someone told Mendoza that the van driver had made it back to Mexico and been picked up by a car on the Mexican side. Mendoza doesn’t remember who told him that, but thinks it had to be Ramos or Compean.

29-30 – Mendoza returned to the station and called the DEA, because it was a drug seizure, and EPIC [El Paso Intelligence Center], so they would “have the intel.” Ramos arrived “with the other part of the load” and Compean arrived at the processing center. Agent Jacquez, Ramos and Compean were not in the same area of the station as Mendoza, but Compean was later

30-32 – The Fabens station processing center where Mendoza was working is about as big as the courtroom. Mendoza finished around 3 PM and was ready to go home. He did not see Ramos again that day. Mendoza thought Compean was preparing his I-44 (drug seizure form) on the computer.

32-34 – Mendoza did not talk to Compean about what happened at the scene, but he did mention falling. Mendoza saw a small bloodstain on Compean’s finger or chin (he couldn’t recall which) and asked what happened. Compean said he slipped on the levee. He didn’t say why he slipped – Mendoza doesn’t remember what he said except the word “slipped.” Gonzalez gave Mendoza GOV EXH 97 – Mendoza’s 6-page statement – to refresh his memory. Mendoza said then that Compean told him he slipped on the levee while trying to apprehend the van driver. Mendoza made this statement voluntarily on March 22, 2005.

34 – Compean never said anything to Mendoza about the driver trying to assault him, about throwing dirt in his eyes, or that they had a wrestling match.

34 – Mendoza called the DEA and EPIC because it is basic procedure in a drug seizure.

34-35 – FOS Richards is a “stickler for all kinds of paperwork.” He goes “by the books” and “will go the extra mile – to do the job.”

35 – On February 17, 2005, neither Compean nor Ramos told Mendoza that they were in fear for their lives or that they had shot at anyone.

35-36 – Mendoza is trained to shoot. The policy of the Border Patrol is to shoot to kill.

Ramos cross-examination (by Stephen G. Peters):

36 – Mendoza and Peters have never spoken before.

36-37 – Area 76 is noted for alien and drug smuggling, and part of Mendoza’s job is to catch smugglers. Some Border Patrol agents like to get credit for seizing large loads of smuggled drugs.

37 – Mendoza doesn’t believe he did anything wrong on February 17, 2005, but he was put on administrative duty because Compean claimed he told Mendoza about the shooting.

37 – The statement Mendoza gave in March 2005 was much the same as he testified to in this trial.

37-38 – Mendoza heard radio traffic from Ramos while they were chasing the van driver, but it was not recorded radio traffic because it was on local rather than going through Rimrock. It’s normal for Fabens’ agents to use the local traffic so they won’t be stepping on each other’s radio traffic.

38 – It doesn’t take longer to key up the Rimrock channel than the local channel, so that’s not a reason to use the local channel. The supervisors like the agents to use the tower channel because it’s recorded, but that not always practical.

39 – Mendoza has been stationed at Fabens for all 6 of his years in the BP. He’s familiar with the area where Jess Harris Road intersects with the ditch, and familiar with the levee, river and vega near there. This area was patrolled at least once a day, or more, back in February 2005.

40 – Neither Compean nor Ramos discussed this incident with Mendoza at any length. They had minimal discussion, and it’s not like Compean or Ramos told Mendoza what happened and left parts out.

Compean cross-examination (by Chris Antcliff):

40-41 – Mendoza did not ask for immunity for anything that happened on February 17, 2005. He did not know what immunity was. Mendoza had a lawyer who gave him advice but he “didn’t retain him.” Mendoza gave a statement in March 2005 and swore that the contents were correct. He did not know whether he would be prosecuted. OIG read him his rights and told him anything he said could be used against him, and Mendoza signed a “Garrity letter.” It was Mendoza’s understanding that anything he said could be used against him administratively.

[NOTE from DRJ regarding the Garrity rule: The (Garrity) Court held that “policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights,” and ruled that statements which a law enforcement officer is compelled to make under threat of possible forfeiture of his or her job could not subsequently be used against the officer in a criminal prosecution.”]

41-43 – Mendoza was put on administrative duty the same week, before he gave his statement, and he’s been on administrative duty ever since. He thinks it is because Compean said he talked to Mendoza. He had an idea why he was put on administrative leave but he didn’t know exactly what Compean had said.

43 – On February 17, 2005, Mendoza saw the van and 3 BP vehicles going pretty fast. One unit had its emergency lights on but he doesn’t recall which one and he doesn’t recall what order they were in.

43-45 –Mendoza arrived at the ditch about 1 minute to 1-1/2 minutes behind the other vehicles. It could have been later. Everyone was outside his or her vehicles. The driver’s side door on the van was open, and Mendoza saw agents Vasquez and Jacquez were standing near the van on the bank. There was a BP vehicle parked to the right of the van, to the left of the van, and behind the van. Mendoza parked behind the BP vehicle that was behind the van. There might have been another vehicle but he couldn’t remember.

45 – Mendoza isn’t sure but he thinks that he, Jacquez, and Vasquez looked in the van together. Mendoza was looking for a radio or something the driver may have left behind.

45-46 – Mendoza knew there was marijuana in the van because he could smell it.

46 – Jacquez and Vasquez were just standing around – they are junior agents. Mendoza had been a BP agent for 5 years in February 2005 and was classified as a senior BP agent. He doesn’t think Jacquez or Vasquez were classified as senior BP agents then.

46-47 – Vasquez tells Mendoza that there is a shotgun on the levee but Mendoza glimpsed over and didn’t see it, but it was not important to him at the moment. Mendoza was wired up over getting the dope.

47-48 – Mendoza saw what he thought was Compean’s car on the levee, but he never saw Ramos, Compean, or the driver of the van because it’s impossible to see on the other side of the levee from where Mendoza was. It’s even harder to see from down in the Sierra ditch.

Government redirect examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):

48-49 – Mendoza identified GOV EXH 30, a photo of the area south of Jess Harris Road known as T.J. Crossing, and GOV EXH 31, a photo of Jess Harris Road where this incident took place. Both exhibits have a topographic scale for these locations. Mendoza did not take these measurements. Mendoza is not with the evidence response team.

49-50 – [GOV EXHS 30 and 31 offered and admitted without objection.]

50-51 – Mendoza identified the dotted yellow line on GOV EXHS 30 and 31 [represented by counsel to be different views of the same place] as the place where he was standing when he was at the scene. He also identified Canal Road, Levee Road, the levee and the ditch. The slope on the levee is approximately 10 feet up. It slopes back down to the vega, so Mendoza couldn’t see over the levee from where he was standing.

51-53 – Mendoza saw Ramos and Compean on the levee road/north slope of the levee. They were walking towards the levee [road] from the vega. Mendoza first had visual on them when they walked up the slope of the levee and he saw them next to Compean’s vehicle. He first saw their heads as they were walking up the slope. They were walking close together, within talking distance. That’s when Mendoza noticed Ramos [was drenched from the waist down*] and Compean was dusting himself off.

* see p. 52.

53 – Mendoza now understands that he was placed on administrative duty because of an allegation Compean made against him.

53-54 – Among the BP agents, Compean would get credit for the load seizure because he wrote the I-44.

Ramos recross-examination (by Stephen G. Peters):

54-55 – Mendoza knows the BP keeps statistics on drug seizures, including indications of who the officers were that made the seizures. That goes in the officer’s permanent record but Mendoza doesn’t think it would help you advance in the BP.

55-57 – [Counsel began a question regarding the documents concerning the seizure on February 17, 2005. The government objected to this question because Mendoza did not author the document. Peters responded that “they are the ones who asked him about the effects of these seizures, and I want to know why he thinks that the Government provided us with information naming him and three other agents as being responsible for this seizure.” During a bench conference, Peters represented that he had “a list of all seizures, supposedly, from January ’04 to March 9th, ’05. And the one that was on February 17th — this is a copy — but it shows Ramos, Mendoza, and Juarez as being responsible for the seizure, for this particular seizure.” The Court indicated a willingness to permit questions if Mendoza had seen the report before. Peters suggested and the government confirmed that the report was generated by C. Sanchez for this case. Peters wants to ask why Mendoza thinks his name is listed as getting credit for this seizure, and the Court allowed one question in this area.]

58 – Mendoza was not aware that there was a document giving him credit with Ramos, Compean, and Juarez for the drug seizure on February 17.

Compean recross-examination (by Chris Antcliff):

58-60 – The first time Mendoza saw Ramos and Compean, they were on top of the levee. The first time Mendoza noticed Ramos was wet and had mud on his pants was after he crossed the ditch when he returned. Compean did not cross the ditch while Mendoza was there. Mendoza did not see Ramos and Compean on the vega, but he did see them when they were coming up the slope of the levee from the vega.

60-61 – Mendoza did not see Ramos and Compean talking. They separated when Ramos crossed back to the north side of the ditch.

Government redirect examination (by Jose Luis Gonzalez):

61 – Mendoza did not see Compean reach over and pick up anything as he walked up the slope of the levee.

61 – [Pass the witness.]

62 – [Court in recess.]

97 Responses to “DRJ Pores Through the Border Patrol Trial Transcripts – Jose Luis Mendoza (Volume X)”

  1. “Q. So then — I’m sorry. You said that Compean and Ramos never joined you guys, or — while you’re there?
    A. Only Agent Ramos. When he came back to the other side, our FOS, Jonathan Richards, was already there.”

    I was reading the Yrigoyen testimony and he says Ramos is crossing back to the other side right when he ( Yrigoyen ) pulls up.

    Yrigoyen then sees Davila moving at a pace that is faster than a walk ( but with some difficulty ) just a couple hundred yards or so away on the Mexican side. Moving directly away from bullet range I’d assume but I don’t have the photos.

    Anyhow, the supervisor is already at the scene at the time Yrigoyen sees this because it’s after Ramos crosses and Mendoza says Richards is there before Ramos crosses. This has got to be seconds from when all of those gunshots rang out. It’s hard to believe this supervisor didn’t hear gunshots when you consider the timeline combining Mendoza’s and Yrigoyen’s testimony. And that’s even considering the possibility that Richards only arrived at the scene a few seconds before Ramos came back to the other side.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  2. This has got to be seconds from when all of those gunshots rang out. It’s hard to believe this supervisor didn’t hear gunshots when you consider the timeline combining Mendoza’s and Yrigoyen’s testimony.

    I think you’re misreading the testimony (I assume you’ve read Compean and Ramos’s testimony, although DRJ hasn’t summarized it yet).

    According to the defendants, after the last shot was fired, Ramos approached Compean and checked him out. Then they walked back to levee, and over the levee. It was during this time that Compean collected some of his shell casings. It is clear from the defendants testimony that some time elapsed before they arrived back at the levee road – long enough for OAD to reach the other side of the river and be observed by Ramos. Ramos testified that OAD was not running, so this must have taken some time.

    Ramos: “When Yrigoyen and Mendez got there, he [OAD] was already over the Mexican levee.”

    Then Yrigoyen arrived with Mendez, and there was some exchange of words. After “some time” Mendez noticed OAD going across the field in Mexico. By this time, Ramos had crossed back over the ditch.

    Meanwhile, Juarez (next to arrive after Ramos, he was at the ditch when the shots were fired) and Vasquez (he arrived next after Juarez and heard the final shots as he was getting out of his car) were checking out the van. There are 3 BP units near the van (the vehicles of Ramos, Juarez and Vasquez) when Mendoza (i.e. the witness above) arrives.

    The next BP agent to arrive north of the ditch is Jacquez. He sees Ramos and Compean appear at the top of the levee road.

    From Jacquez’s testimony:

    23 Q. Okay. They [Ramos and Compean] come over the levee road. What do they do
    24 next?
    25 A. They start talking to Lorenzo. [Yrigoyen]
    1 Q. Okay. I’m sorry, before they get to the levee road, do you
    2 see Agent Compean reach over for anything?
    3 A. No, sir.
    4 Q. I’m sorry. They go across and do what?
    5 A. They start speaking with Agent Lorenzo Yrigoyen.
    6 Q. Where is he at that point?
    7 A. He’s parked right next to Agent Compean’s vehicle.
    8 Q. Okay. How long did they talk, approximately?
    9 A. Couple minutes as well.
    10 Q. Okay. And what are you doing in the meantime?
    11 A. I’m still talking to the other three agents that were
    12 there. And then FOS Richards shows up.
    13 Q. And once Richards showed up, what, do Compean and Ramos
    14 stay where they were?
    15 A. At that point, yes.
    16 Q. Then what?
    17 A. FOS Richards gets us all together and starts discussing the
    18 seizure. And at that point, Agent Ramos came across through
    19 the irrigation ditch.

    So, according to Ramos, when Yrigoyen and Mendez arrived, OAD (who was painfully wounded and had a bullet in his leg) had already crossed the Mexican levee. Then Ramos, Compean, Yrigoyen and Mendez were standing on top of the levee “for a few minutes”. Jacquez had already arrived, and Richards had not, when Compean and Ramos got back to the top of the levee. By this time, OAD had crossed the river and the Mexican levee, and Richards was still not there. Sometime during those few minutes, Richards did arrive. Meanwhile, the BP agents had inspected the van.

    There is no way Richards could have heard the shots.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  3. I was reading the Yrigoyen testimony and he says Ramos is crossing back to the other side right when he ( Yrigoyen ) pulls up.

    From Yrigoyen’s testimony:

    1 Q. Let me back up. I’m sorry. As you’re arriving to that
    2 location, who do you see, if anyone?
    3 A. Mr. Compean and Mr. Ramos are —
    4 Q. Now, they’re — that’s when you’re driving up, correct?
    5 A. Yes, sir.
    6 Q. What are they doing?
    7 A. I’m not sure.
    8 Q. I mean, are they walking, standing?
    9 A. No, they’re standing.
    10 Q. And where are they standing?
    11 A. I — if I recall correctly, I believe they were standing
    12 towards the front of Mr. Compean’s vehicle.

    Yrigoyen does say later that as he was exiting his vehicle, Ramos started back across the ditch.

    From Yrigoyen’s testimony, the most likely scenario seems to me that Compean and Ramos were talking about the incident (which they deny) when Yrigoyen arrived. Since they don’t intend for Yrigoyen to hear what they’re talking about, as he arrives, Ramos walks away to start back across the ditch. That involves going down the slope of the levee, down the steep slope into the ditch, across the water in the ditch, and back up the other side. If you are not pursuing a suspect, you presumably do this somewhat carefully, so you don’t do a face-plant in the sewage.

    As an aside, Compean and Ramos’ claim that they didn’t discuss the incident other than an “are you OK” is probably the least believable part of their testimony to me. Compean had never fired his weapon outside practice before, and neither agent had ever been in a shooting incident. They claimed to believe someone had just pulled a gun on them, meaning (if true) they might well have just been killed. And they say nothing to each other about it? Not credible, in my book.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  4. US immigration has been a concern of mine for quite some time. I am American and my wife is from Venezuela… so I am very familiar with the racial profiling that occurs when crossing US Borders. This country is far from being the “land of the free”. I created a 5 minute short film that deals with the anxiety and frustration created when passing through US Customs. Please view and share comments:

    http://films.thelot.com/films/19561

    Borderline Wrong (89a99b)

  5. Borderline Wrong; since you seem to be of the view that the United States doesn’t have a right to know who enters it and that it is an oppressive nation, would you like to compare it to the nation of your wife’s origin? I am sure that Hugh Chavez is much more generous to those who come into Venezuela illegally.
    But then, I have never heard of people trying to bust into Venezuela illegally because it is such a nation of “freedom”.

    retire05 (b7fd38)

  6. J Curtis and LagunaDave,

    I’m addressing this to you because you are commenting on this thread, but it’s not really meant as a critique or comment on anything you’ve said. No doubt you’ve already noticed this but, for the benefit of others who have not studied this transcript the way you have, I want to mention that it’s very difficult to build a firm time line regarding when each agent arrived at the scene and what they saw. Like “normal” people, these agents have been inconsistent in what they saw and what they remember.

    So far, the witness testimony I’ve read has been inconsistent on where everyone was and when they got there – sometimes in minor ways and other times in major ways – and the witnesses have often contradicted their own testimony or prior statements. It’s tempting to take isolated excerpts from the testimony as “proof” someone heard or saw an event but, in most instances, I can point to another place in the transcript that undermines that.

    DRJ (605076)

  7. Drj,

    Have you noticed any testimony about distances? I can’t figure out how far the ditch, levee, the vega and the river are from the road where the van and BP vehicles were located. I can’t tell how high the levee is from the beginning of the vega either.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  8. LagunaDave,

    135-2: Yrigoyen points out Davila as the person who he observed. He would have to be very close to make a positive ID.

    136-13: When Yrigoyen sees Davila, Davila is moving at a “decent pace”, although with some difficulty. So we have Davila very close to the incident site and moving at a decent pace.

    138-23: Yrigoyen testifies that Ramos is already on the north side of the ditch while he, Yrigoyen, is observing Davila.

    We know from the preceding Mendoza testimony at 27-6 that Richards was already at the scene before Ramos made his way to the north side of the ditch.

    This tells us that Richards was at the scene at the time that Yrigoyen sees Davila who is still close enough to the shooting site that Yrigoyen can positively ID him and Davila is moving away from the site at a “decent pace”.

    Someone who is close enough to positively ID and is moving away at a decent pace becomes unidentifiable in a hurry so Davila was very close to the shooting site when the observation was made.

    Jacquez merely makes estimates in his testimony. That would be unreliable for creating the timeline. Same for time elapsed during Ramos patting down Compean for injuries.

    “Decent pace” and “close enough to positively ID” are subjective but I think it’s inferrable that Davila must have been very close to the shooting site, time and distance wise, when the observation is made. It looks like pretty good evidence to me that Richards heard the shots.
    —–

    It’s difficult to get a clear idea on distances from point a to point b because they are doing these things on maps, “I was here and then I moved here” and “he picked me up on this road over here” and so forth. It would have been nice if they’d included the exhibits along with the transcript.

    I’ve had to infer things based on testimony such as assuming that Davila was picked up very close to the river since he wouldn’t be able to walk great distances at a decent pace and scale a Mexican levee on the premise that he was so badly injured that he had to crawl across the Rio Grande on his hands and knees, which is what he testified to.

    I guess he caught a second wind. I never knew you could catch a second wind from a bullet wound, but there it is.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  9. Jerri Lynn,

    Mendoza said the levee is 10 feet above the vega. (Vol X, p 51)

    Offhand, I can’t remember any testimony about the distance from the levee to the Rio Grande but there may have been something that I can’t find. C. Sanchez testified the area from the levee to teh Rio Grande is owned by the US government, but there was no mention of distances. (Vol VIII pp 93-94)

    DRJ (605076)

  10. I’ve brought up the border crossing card that Davila used to own as a possible clue that he was a US citizen. I missed this reference to the card before:

    vol 7 – 166

    3 Q. Okay. Let’s talk about Fabens a little bit. You
    4 identified a number of pictures for Mr. Gonzalez of various
    5 streets in Fabens. Are you very familiar with Fabens?
    6 A. Yes.
    7 Q. Have you ever lived in Fabens?
    8 A. No.
    9 Q. How do you know Fabens so well?
    10 A. When I used to have my border crossing card, and — because
    11 I used to have it before they took it away — I used to go over
    12 and go buy things, and I crossed by that bridge there.

    Why he states “they took it”, is he referring to present company?

    If “they” took his crossing card away after the incident, doesn’t this mean he was in the US legally at the time of the incident?

    I’ve got to believe that if he was here legally, the government would have been obligated by treaty to demand that Mexico extradite Davila the same way they would have had to extradite me if I was in Davila’s shoes.

    That’s not the only reason why the government wouldn’t have a case if Davila was here legally. Border agents probably have a different rule book for legals trying to escape the US in the course of a felony.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  11. Regarding distances you can get a pretty good idea from the aerial photographs on google maps. These don’t help much with elevations of course.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  12. “Regarding distances you can get a pretty good idea from the aerial photographs on google maps.”

    Thanks, James. I’ll try to fire up my left brain and look at them.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (d7ff57)

  13. J Curtis,

    I obviously don’t know what Aldrete-Davila was thinking or much about his past, but I can speculate about several scenarios that could be true and that do not make him a US citizen. First, Aldrete-Davila could be referring to his 30-day border crossing pass that he was apparently issued by the OIG in March 2005 and that was renewed every month until October 2005. Thus, his knowledge of Fabens’ roads could have come from his visits after this incident occurred.

    Second, Aldrete-Davila could be referring to a border crossing pass he held when he was younger. I’m not sure how the rules changed after 9/11 but before then it was easy to get a pass to cross the border for work, shopping, social visits, etc. Mexicans routinely crossed the border in the El Paso area communities.

    Aldrete-Davila could be referring to this pass, especially since traveling from his home in San Isidro, Mexico, to the area Texas cities would be far easier than traveling within Mexico for comparable work or shopping. These are border towns and while the demarcation line is bright in our minds, it is blurred for the people who live there.

    DRJ (605076)

  14. They actually get into the distances pretty good on page 145-146 of this volume and then looking at the google map while reading the testimony you get a good idea of what they are looking at.

    They determined that it was about 600 feet from levee road to levee road. A little more than 300 feet ( a football field ) from where Davila testified he was shot to the Mexican levee road and another 100 feet or so, down the south slope of the Mexican levee, to the cultivated field where Yrigoyen first sees Davila. I can’t determine where precisely in the field he first sees Davila, he points to it visually. His friends’ vehicles are on the next road south which is past the cultivated field about 500 feet south of the Mexican levee road. The two roads are the north and south edges of the cultivated field. One of the friends walks north part way through the field and gets to Davila and walks with him back south to the vehicle.

    Considering all that, Davila had covered more than 100 yards when Yrigoyen first saw him. Anywhere from 130 yards to possibly twice that depending where precisely in the field he first saw him. It’s further than I thought originally and I’m surprised Yrigoyen could positively ID him from that distance. I’d have to say at least a minute elapsed from the bullet to the Yrigoyen observation but I wouldn’t give it more than two minutes because even limping south at a “decent pace” he should be able to cover more than 200 yards per minute and he’s got to be in a hurry to get out of there.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  15. These are border towns and while the demarcation line is bright in our minds, it is blurred for the people who live there.

    Comment by DRJ

    But they don’t give everyone who lives on the Mexican side of the border a border pass to come and go as they please, do they?

    I can’t disprove any of the examples you offered but I would wager that the lawyer asking the questions and 99% of everyone reading the testimony would have the perception that they are talking about pre-incident Fabens visits.

    The other time he mentioned his border pass he made it seem like it was a permanent border pass. He had it since he was a child and only needed help from the govt to get back into the US after the smuggling incident because he “lost” that border pass that he had since childhood. Lost could mean taken from him, as in: “She was arrested for DUI and lost her license”.

    It just seems even more probable to me now that Davila was in the US legally at the time of the incident. It needs to be looked into.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  16. even limping south at a “decent pace” he should be able to cover more than 200 yards per minute and he’s got to be in a hurry to get out of there.

    Two hundred yards per minute is slightly better than a nine-minute mile.

    Average walking speed (over level or paved surfaces, unwounded) is about 3 mph, or 20 minutes/mile.

    IMO, it could have easily taken 2-3 times as long, considering the terrain and his condition.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  17. Has anyone here assessed Ramos’s testimony in a comment to one of DRJ’s comments? I thought somebody commented that they thought it hurt him.

    I just reread it and I don’t have the same opinion. I think Tracy said that she didn’t believe that they wouldn’t take cover out there after OAD went into the brush if they thought he was armed. The only place that I go on vacation is the Big Bend area–which, in some places, has the same kind of terrain along the river as Fabens (I’ve been through that area too), I know that there is no cover where Ramos and Compean were. There is vega and then an expanse of brush and then the river. Ramos and Compean would have had to head back to the levee for cover, causing them to divide their attention between the brush and where they were going. According to Ramos, he watched until he saw OAD get out of the river on the other side and get to a point where he was out of range.

    One thing I gathered is that Ramos was mad as heck that the other agents didn’t back them up by going to help Compean. He seemed to think that it was supposed to be a group effort.

    If anyone else made observations about perceiving particular problems in his testimony and commented about it under one of the other postings, I’d appreciate being directed to it so that I can read it and go back to the testimony to figure out what you are seeing that I’m not.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  18. Average walking speed (over level or paved surfaces, unwounded) is about 3 mph, or 20 minutes/mile.

    IMO, it could have easily taken 2-3 times as long, considering the terrain and his condition.

    Comment by LagunaDave

    He was moving faster than a walk, according to agent Y ( I’m sick of looking up his name every time so I can spell it ) and that was after he was out of bullet range.

    There is the issue of climbing that levee though. I’m not sure how high and steep that levee is but maybe I wouldn’t want the jury considering that wounded climb and how long that could possibly take. They could start sympathizing with the scumbag and this jury was stacked to be sympathetic with Davila. 11 out of 14 hispanic jurors in a state with 35% hispanic population? I wonder if the other Sutton juries against border patrol agents had a similar flavor.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  19. J Curtis,

    Are you referring to how long it would take Aldrete-Davila to climb the levee on the Mexican side?

    DRJ (605076)

  20. He was moving faster than a walk, according to agent Y ( I’m sick of looking up his name every time so I can spell it ) and that was after he was out of bullet range.

    There is the issue of climbing that levee though. I’m not sure how high and steep that levee is but maybe I wouldn’t want the jury considering that wounded climb and how long that could possibly take. They could start sympathizing with the scumbag and this jury was stacked to be sympathetic with Davila. 11 out of 14 hispanic jurors in a state with 35% hispanic population? I wonder if the other Sutton juries against border patrol agents had a similar flavor.

    The testimony was “decent pace”.

    8 Q. And would you describe to the jury how he was moving?
    9 A. He was moving — I wouldn’t say he was walking, and I
    10 wouldn’t say he was running. He was just — it looked like to
    11 be a cultivated field. And I know if any of the fields ever
    12 get plowed, or — it’s difficult to move through. So he was
    13 just moving through the field at a decent pace going south.
    14 Q. Okay. Did you notice if he was limping or not?
    15 A. I — I couldn’t — I wouldn’t be able to tell that. I just
    16 assumed that it was because of the field being cultivated that
    17 he was having — he wasn’t at a steady walk, like we would be
    18 walking on a flat surface.

    Yrigoyen later testified that someone assisted him in crossing the last part of the field.

    The demographics of the state are irrelevant, obviously. The jury is drawn from the local area. According to 2000 census data, 78.2% of the County of El Paso is Hispanic. 11/14 = 78.5%.

    According to this chart of 2000 census data, 69% of the population of El Paso speaks Spanish at home.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  21. 17

    I commented on the testimony of Ramos and Compean in comment 27 to this post . Briefly I thought the most damaging part of their testimony was they both acknowledged that they knew that they were supposed to report the shooting within one hour and that they didn’t. Neither had any sort of reasonable explanation.

    I also think there are numerous other problems with their testimony and that overall it does not seem credible.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  22. Gunshots do not necessarily hinder a man pumped on adrenaline from functioning unless nerves are severed, major bones broken (legs), vitals are struck or if there is major muscle damage. A hit in the buttocks that does damage to the urethra would not necessarily be painful (at the moment), although it is likely that he would feel it big time later. A number of our people (a highway patrol agancy) have been involved in shootings and were amazed by the ability of fatally injured assailants to continue to function and fight or run and a few others by their own ability, not even realizing they had been hit until moments later.

    As to talking among themselves after a shoot out, it is very likely that the involved were silent as it is a very emotionally draining experience. As the adrenaline wears off and the officers ratchet their emotions back down they will experience fatigue. Adrenaline is known to be toxic if not totally burned off. Studies of people involved in post stress trauma note that emotions can include anger that they were involved, anger at the assailant for forcing the issue, anger at partners for getting them into the situation or not preventing it, anger at themselves for not preventing the shooting, and probably in this case embarrassment and self-reproach for an inability to stop the assailant (OAD). They may also experience relief that they are not hurt and that they did not seriously hurt the assailant and trepidation at what the supervisors and administration were going to think and do. These are all “normal” emotions. If he felt threatened and other officers did not join in assisting him, he would be unhappy with them as well. (They would probably get the silent treatment for that.)

    If Compean thought he was directly threatened as he maintains, the experience is very personal and overwhelming and there have been many recorded instances of officers believing that they were going to die – and accepting it rather than fighting back. In the 1980s when this became known, training was altered all over the US so that officers were taught not to give up even if they thought they were fatally injured (as they might be wrong) and fewer officers just laid down and died. The fact that he was not shot and no one found a weapon does not alter this. It is likely that the two officers just checked to see if each other was okay or possibly a quick thanks from Compean to Ramos for being there for him.

    Part of post stress trauma has to do with the way people are brought up, although not all people (including officers) experience it. Officer believe they are the good guys. If they have been brought up in the church, there is a commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, which can be a conflict with officers (me included). Being in a situation where he has taken a life, seriously injured someone or used deadly force imposes a sudden conflict. Guys susceptible to this fool themselves until the moment after this happens. I always said that in that situation, it was the other guy’s choice, but after a man I was pursuing nearly killed himself, I was essentially a basket case – unable to properly function at the scene in my job. Only when I found he was not hurt badly was I able to come down from that – and not immediately either. After a shooting, many agencies require a visit to mental health professionals, including ours. One friend of mine in another agency (Don Roberts, Toledo, Ohio) committed suicide after a righteous fatal shooting in which he probably saved his partner’s life.

    Compean may have also doubted himself after the incident. If he thought initially that there was a weapon (which would mean to him that he was about to be shot), he was justified in defending himself and knew it. Later when he had not been shot at, he may have wondered if he saw what he thought he saw or if he had been “seeing things”, in other words, he may have thought he made a mistake. That alone could bring dread to him – and a lot of quiet.

    Michael Hunter (107675)

  23. M. Hunter,

    I read your comments at Sue Bob’s. I’m glad you commented here.

    DRJ (605076)

  24. As to talking among themselves after a shoot out, it is very likely that the involved were silent as it is a very emotionally draining experience. As the adrenaline wears off and the officers ratchet their emotions back down they will experience fatigue. Adrenaline is known to be toxic if not totally burned off. Studies of people involved in post stress trauma note that emotions can include anger that they were involved, anger at the assailant for forcing the issue, anger at partners for getting them into the situation or not preventing it, anger at themselves for not preventing the shooting, and probably in this case embarrassment and self-reproach for an inability to stop the assailant (OAD). They may also experience relief that they are not hurt and that they did not seriously hurt the assailant and trepidation at what the supervisors and administration were going to think and do. These are all “normal” emotions. If he felt threatened and other officers did not join in assisting him, he would be unhappy with them as well. (They would probably get the silent treatment for that.)

    My closest experience is probably being involved in a couple of automobile accidents, and I have found that people tend to be talkative.

    In any case, the defense would have us believe that after allegedly being menaced with a gun, Compean and Ramos walked slowly and in perfect silence back across the Vega and up the levee, and then stood still without speaking until Yrigoyen’s vehicle appeared. Ramos then immediately departed without a word, and Compean then immediately engaged in casual conversation with Yrigoyen (never mentioning anything at all about seeing a gun).

    Is it possible? Yes. Is it credible, in my opinion? Not at all.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  25. The demographics of the state are irrelevant, obviously. The jury is drawn from the local area. According to 2000 census data, 78.2% of the County of El Paso is Hispanic. 11/14 = 78.5%.

    I didn’t know that. Is it fair to try border agents in an area with so many non-assimilated Mexicans?

    I’m thinking that a border agent who ended up in the same predicament working the US-Canada border, where the smuggler was a white guy from Canada, would fare better with a jury composed of Duluth or Fargo residents than what those guys down south can expect to face. I’m probably stating the obvious but I think it’s worth stating.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  26. “My closest experience is probably being involved in a couple of automobile accidents, and I have found that people tend to be talkative.”

    An accident is NOT the same thing – not remotely. I’ve been in a few, and handled thousands. Deliberately crash your car into someone else and see if you are still talkative. It engages a whole different set of emotions and values. That is where the critical differences are with respect to the psyche. Anyone can make an accidental mistake and get into a collision. Other than after-the-fact horror or regret, the emotions are not involved. In a shooting there is a deliberate effort to do something you have trained for but to deliberately do it to another human being that for all of the rest of your life you have trained NOT to do. Every stricture in life warns us that the taking of a life cannot be done lightly. Murder is against the rules (and all its forms like manslaughter) both at the state level and of course the 6th Commandment. Penalties are severe. Attempting it is also sanctioned severely. The problems involved with a shooting loom.

    In this shooting ironically, an officer who felt he was under attack and defended himself, and another who helped defend him in his mind have been sentenced to hard time on the word of a whole set of people who were given immunity. Had they known the future, what would they have thought? How’s that for a stressor to strike a person mute?

    I’m still reading the transcript. Clearly some BIG mistakes were made, maybe errors in judgement, and maybe worse. I have a lot of questions (and am still seeking answers), but I have not yet seen anything to convince me at this point that these guys got justice. I’ll post further after the weekend and more reading.

    Michael Hunter (107675)

  27. Glad to see the bushbots hard at work demonizing those who protect us. It makes no difference what the testimony is: these two should have never been tried to begin with.

    78% mexican population? I call that an invasion, colonization and occupation, with all of the graft Johnny Sutton can muster at the insistence of the mexicano gobierno, paisanos.

    I hope to god the Angry Clam is no longer affiliated with this site and the rubbish I read here.

    petit bourgeois (69e150)

  28. I didn’t know that. Is it fair to try border agents in an area with so many non-assimilated Mexicans?

    Unless I’m mistaken, only American citizens are eligible for jury duty. The defendants themselves undoubtedly speak Spanish at home, making them “unassimilated Mexicans” by your definition, too.

    As such, I would think the jury has more in common with the defendants (Latino US citizens) than the victim (Mexican citizen, drug smuggler). Individual biases may vary, but I wouldn’t automatically assume the majority the jury pool was unduly sympathetic to OAD or hostile to the agents.

    I haven’t read that the defense requested a change of venue, which, if there were indications of severe bias, they presumably would have. I think, if anything, they might have expected some bias in favor of their clients.

    Anybody know how the Spanish-language media in El Paso covered the case? I haven’t read anything about that.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  29. 78% mexican population? I call that an invasion, colonization and occupation

    Yes, well they said that about the Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles, Asians, and almost everyone else who immigrated here at one time or another. If you want to talk about invasion, colonization and occupation, Montezuma and friends (who most of today’s Mexicans and Latinos are descended from) probably felt the same about the first European immigrants off the boat, too.

    Be that as it may. From the same census figures:

    72.6% of the population of El Paso County are native-born citizens.

    Another 11.5% are naturalized citizens.

    That makes 84.1% of the population American citizens, with the same rights as the rest of us.

    15.9% of the population (counted by the census) are not US citizens.

    I hope you’re not saying that Americans of Latino descent are somehow second class citizens, because that is certainly what your remarks suggest.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  30. As to talking among themselves after a shoot out, it is very likely that the involved were silent as it is a very emotionally draining experience.

    Ramos was described as “excited” and “happy”.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  31. Laguna Dave,

    I don’t think that J Curtis is demeaning El Pasoans. I am very familiar with that part of Texas, and I would say that the folks in El Paso have more affinity for the Mexican culture than the Scots-Irish, German culture that pushed into Texas in the 1800’s.

    One of my friends from law school is an Assistant District Attorney out there. He comes from English stock via Conneticut. They have been in the El Paso area since the 1800’s. He speaks fluent Spanish. He is definitely different than a Texan who grew up in say, the Lubbock or Midland-Odessa area. He, as I said above, has great affinity for the Mexican culture. He also told me that the people in El Paso, in general, hate the Border Patrol.

    A year ago, on one of my trips to the Big Bend, I stopped off in Presidio and was talking to one of the Mexican-Americans there. He is a descendant of Pancho Villa. I am a descendant of a soldier who fought with General “Black Jack” Pershing against Pancho Villa. My acquaintence considers Pancho Villa a great hero. I consider him a murderous barbarian.

    Our Texas border is not like a suburb in Chicago or Houston. It is an enigma to those who did not grow up there.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  32. […] Michael Hunter had some great commments about the Ramos Compean case here at this site. He has made another excellent comment at Patterico’s place. I am going to post it here because it gives us good insight into why Ramos and Compean may not have talked too much after the shoot and how OAD could have kept running after the shooting. […]

    Sue Bob’s Diary » More From A Law Enforcement Officer (1b383c)

  33. LagunaDave,

    Most El Pasoans don’t even believe in the concept of “illegal alien” and they are the jury for border patrol agents whose job it is to enforce the concept of “illegal alien”.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  34. In Vol. XI, the jurors are voir dired. When the subject of the Border Patrol comes up – all of them who speak up [there’re plenty] divulge that they have friends or relatives who work for the BP or other law enforcement agencies. That’s found at pp. 44-69.

    Following that, the potential jurors are asked about negative experiences with BP. No one speaks up. Then, they’re asked about postive experiences. Three or four jurors relate positive experiences.

    Jurors were also asked about their exposure to the case via the media. Those who reported hearing of the case read about it in the El Paso Times or saw a news program that aired the night before.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  35. “Following that, the potential jurors are asked about negative experiences with BP. No one speaks up. Then, they’re asked about postive experiences. Three or four jurors relate positive experiences.”

    In 1984, I tried a worker’s comp case in a small town east of Austin. I represented the plaintiff–who worked for the power plant out there.

    I voir dired the jury on whether or not they knew my client and his family and/or had any biases against him for any reason. I ended up losing the case big time–despite good medical evidence.

    After the trial, I took back the T.V. and VCR I had rented for the doctor’s videotaped deposition. The guy at the rental store, who knew about the trial as did everyone else in town or so it seemed, told me that I never had a chance with the jury.

    He went on to tell me than nobody liked the plaintiff or his family because the were considered “white trash”. My “drunk as a skunk” client’s wife had recently climbed up on a table at a dance at the local VFW hall and performed a little strip tease to the CW song “Silver Wings”.

    That taught me a lot about human nature and the unwillingness of people on a venire panel to tell the whole truth about their opinions to some lawyer standing up there asking nosey questions.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  36. Are you referring to how long it would take Aldrete-Davila to climb the levee on the Mexican side?

    Comment by DRJ

    Obviously.

    If I have the correct mental image, they were between the two levees when the incident occurred. They had already descended the American levee into the “river basin” when Davila was shot.

    Davila would then head south and would soon encounter the upward slope of the Mexican levee after crossing the little trickle of water we call the “Rio Grande” and the Mexican side vega. On each side of the trickle there is vegetation growing and they call this “vega”. The vega can be thought of as a natural part of the Rio Grande during times when the water level is higher.

    I don’t know how steep or how high the Mexican levee is and Davila probably scaled it in 3 seconds but it’s the kind of obstacle that the smuggler’s lawyers could argue was a serious impediment and the lawyers for the good guys would have difficulty proving otherwise.

    It certainly wouldn’t be a fun thing to scale this little hill with a bullet in your butt. The defense wouldn’t want the jurors putting themselves in Davila’s shoes and imagining how fast and far they could move in Davila’s condition. That might be very prejudicial to the defendants even if it does convince some jurors that the supervisor was at the scene.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  37. Those in the jury pool who have some pro law enforcement connections which would make them tend to favor the agents would remove themselves with the expectation that the government “knows all” and would discover the connections.

    Illegal aliens who have been chased around by the border patrol, drug smugglers and others with connections to criminal elements would be sympathetic to the government’s case and wouldn’t need to fear being exposed by the government so they wouldn’t need to disqualify themselves.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  38. Laguna Dave, why do you think Ramos and Compean spoke Spanish in their homes? Do you have anything (but a dimwitted opinion) to back that up?
    Tejanos are not all fluent in Spanish. Most of the Tejanos I know speak no Spanish. I have a good friend who is the nephew of Congressman Barrientos and he, his parents and his children, do not speak Spanish. Other friends, who were actually born in Mexico, never bothered to teach their children Spanish. English is the language of success and they knew that. The kids spoke English in school and the parents spoke Engish to them in the home.
    Your statement was a dumb as saying anyone whose name is O’Brien speaks Gaelic in their home or any Texan named Wilhelm speaks German in their homes.

    retire05 (b7fd38)

  39. I don’t think that J Curtis is demeaning El Pasoans.

    My last comment quoted a post from someone named “petit bourgeois”.

    J. Curtis says this, however, without giving us any evidence to support his claim:

    Most El Pasoans don’t even believe in the concept of “illegal alien”

    I also knew he was going to post this before I read it:

    Those in the jury pool who have some pro law enforcement connections which would make them tend to favor the agents would remove themselves with the expectation that the government “knows all” and would discover the connections.

    Illegal aliens who have been chased around by the border patrol, drug smugglers and others with connections to criminal elements would be sympathetic to the government’s case and wouldn’t need to fear being exposed by the government so they wouldn’t need to disqualify themselves.

    Classic conspiracy theorizing: if the potential jurors had all reported negative BP experiences, that would have proven the bias. But the fact they all reported positive experiences also proves the bias!

    Concerning bias, I will just repeat two things that nobody addressed:

    1) I saw nothing in the transcript to suggest the defense asked for a change of venue. Perhaps that would have been a separate proceeding and a different transcript, but until somebody provides evidence they did, I have to assume they did not. The defense attorneys are from the El Paso area, and if this completely one-sided bias existed, it seems like they would be aware of it. At least one of the defense attorneys appeared to be Latina.

    2) The attitude of the Spanish-language media in El Paso to the case could give some indication of the Latino community’s attitude. I don’t speak Spanish, so it’s impossible for me to research this – maybe someone else can.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  40. Once more – only US citizens serve on juries.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  41. LagunaDave,

    Is it your contention that the citizens of El Paso aren’t any more inclined to sympathize with illegal aliens than the citizens of any other US city would be?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  42. LagunaDave #39:

    I encourage you to read the early part of Vol VI regarding the selection of the jury. I plan to review the jury selection portion of the transcript after summarizing the final argument so we can all “enter the jury room” with some feel for the composition of this jury.

    You may be interested in reading about Mr. Llewellyn, a potential juror who stated he could be fair but was inclined to favor the defendant agents and who was struck by the Court from the venire. (See Vol VI pp 145-155.) There are other potential jurors, such as Mr. Castillo, who discussed the pre-trial publicity. (Vol VI p 158.)

    DRJ (605076)

  43. Laguna Dave, why do you think Ramos and Compean spoke Spanish in their homes? Do you have anything (but a dimwitted opinion) to back that up?

    Tejanos are not all fluent in Spanish. Most of the Tejanos I know speak no Spanish. I have a good friend who is the nephew of Congressman Barrientos and he, his parents and his children, do not speak Spanish. Other friends, who were actually born in Mexico, never bothered to teach their children Spanish. English is the language of success and they knew that. The kids spoke English in school and the parents spoke Engish to them in the home.

    Your statement was a dumb as saying anyone whose name is O’Brien speaks Gaelic in their home or any Texan named Wilhelm speaks German in their homes.

    Except that, rather than name-calling, I provided data on this earlier in the thread.

    According to US census data, 69% of the population of El Paso speaks Spanish at home. If we knew nothing else except that Ramos and Compean are randomly selected residents of El Paso, we would have to say it is most likely that they speak Spanish at home.

    78.2% of the population of El Paso county describe themselves as Hispanic. It is reasonable to suppose that the 69% who speak Spanish at home are Hispanic. That would imply that roughly 88% of the Hispanic population of El Paso speak Spanish at home. Statistically speaking, there is a some chance (about 1.5%, by the numbers) that both Ramos and Compean are part of the 12% that do not.

    Further, prior to the sentencing, one of the convicted agents, I believe Ramos, asked for a loosening of his bail to attend a family wedding. The various events that were part of the wedding were described for the judge (to indicate the time frame he was asking to be allowed to attend) and it is clear that it is a Mexican-style wedding. This is circumstantial evidence that the agent’s family remains tied to the Latino culture.

    In any case, given the census statistics, it is reasonable to suppose that Compean and Ramos spoke Spanish at home. My statement that they “undoubtedly” spoke Spanish at home was probably a bit too strong, but I would still wager on it with confidence.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  44. Sorry Laguna Dave,

    I didn’t see petit “whatever’s” comment. It was a little extreme.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  45. I encourage you to read the early part of Vol VI regarding the selection of the jury. I plan to review the jury selection portion of the transcript after summarizing the final argument so we can all “enter the jury room” with some feel for the composition of this jury.

    You may be interested in reading about Mr. Llewellyn, a potential juror who stated he could be fair but was inclined to favor the defendant agents and who was struck by the Court from the venire. (See Vol VI pp 145-155.) There are other potential jurors, such as Mr. Castillo, who discussed the pre-trial publicity. (Vol VI p 158.)

    Believe it or not, I did read all 300 pages of the jury selection…

    The start of Llewellyn’s testimony:

    12 THE COURT: So do you feel you can sit in this case
    13 and be a fair and impartial juror?
    14 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
    15 THE COURT: All right. Do you want to tell me why?
    16 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Unless you’ve really been out
    17 there and gone through what a lot of law enforcement officers
    18 have, I think things happen, they happen quickly, spur of the
    19 moment. I don’t know the circumstances of this, but I would
    20 lean toward the officers.

    Striking a potential juror whose answer to the question “Do you think you can be a fair and impartial juror?” is “No.” seems like the only reasonable thing to do. There is a lot more questioning, as the defense tries to get him to change the answer, but still.

    The only thing in the jury selection that I found unusual was the interview of potential juror Vargas (p. 131):

    16 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah. Well, that’s — you know,
    17 like I said, I don’t know the facts. But if it turns out that,
    18 you know, they were in the act of maybe pursuing something —
    19 you said it was a murder trial, and — or attempted murder, I’m
    20 sorry, and they had to fire upon somebody, and it was a
    21 mistake, then I would side on them.

    After further questioning, and despite the admission that in a scenario very similar to the facts of this case he would have a bias, the judge denies the government’s motion to strike Mr. Vargas for cause.

    Of course, this probably isn’t relevant, since the government surely used one of their peremptory challenges to remove him from the pool, and he did not serve on the jury. But this was the only case I saw where the judge allowed a juror who clearly expressed bias either way to remain in the jury pool.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  46. 41

    Citizens of El Paso may be less biased against Mexican drug smugglers then most in the United States. This does not mean they are biased in their favor. The defendants were entitled to an impartial jury not a jury of anti-Mexican bigots.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  47. 25

    I don’t see any reason to believe that an analogous case on the Canadian border would have come out any differently. Although I don’t think you would have the same amount of public support for the convicted agents which seems to me to be primarily driven by resentment of immigration from Mexico as there is comparatively little resentment of immigration from Canada.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  48. Tracy,

    I realize only US citizens can serve on juries. I assume your point is that someone who is a US citizen will generally support US border objectives and law enforcement. As I’m sure you know, immigration issues in America are polarized even among US citizens and its leaders, and El Pasoans are even more polarized than average citizens because they live on the front lines. I think it’s fair to say that many El Pasoans identify more with Mexico than the US – something I don’t think you would find in a typical American community – because their heritage, families and livelihoods are more closely tied to Mexico than the US.

    It’s hard to believe how different far West Texas and other areas on the border are than the rest of America. Here’s an article from a Berkeley study that gives you an idea of how lower income El Pasoans live, especially in the colonias. NAFTA eliminated many of the jobs that employed lower income Mexican-Americans, so more of them live in America but work in Mexico. I urge you to keep this in mind when you are considering the views of the citizens who probably heard this case.

    DRJ (605076)

  49. Citizens of El Paso may be less biased against Mexican drug smugglers then most in the United States. This does not mean they are biased in their favor. The defendants were entitled to an impartial jury not a jury of anti-Mexican bigots.

    Comment by James B. Shearer — 2/24/2007 @ 1:17 pm

    What makes you think that citizens not living in El Paso are “anti-Mexican bigots”?

    The vast majority of Americans have a bias against drug smugglers and a bias in favor of law enforcement. Would you disqualify all of those potential jurors with that bias?

    Most Americans have a bias against child molesters in favor of law enforcement. In such a case, would you disqualify all of those with such a bias from the jury and want to try the case in some city without an anti-molester bias?

    Anyhow, the question concerned bias before the particulars of the case are known.

    Is it your contention that the citizens of El Paso aren’t any more inclined to sympathize with illegal aliens than the citizens of any other US city would be?

    It’s an easy question that requires a yes or no answer.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  50. James B Shearer #46,

    I think your comment is inappropriate.

    LagunaDave,

    I understand the Court can excuse jurors for cause. Your comment #39 was discussing what would happen to a pro-law enforcement potential juror and I pointed out this section as relevant. FWIW I think the test of impartiality under McVeigh includes giving due deference to a potential juror’s claim that s/he can remain impartial, and the Court’s responsibility is to gauge how credible that claim is. Clearly the Court did not find Mr. Llewellyn’s claim of impartiality credible.

    DRJ (605076)

  51. I realize only US citizens can serve on juries.

    I know you know that, DRJ. I should have made clear that my comment was directed toward Mr. Curtis – who seems to believe that “illegal aliens who have been chased around by the border patrol” were part of the jury pool. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  52. Tracy,

    Thanks for clarifying that and I’m sorry I got in the middle of your discussion. Sometimes it’s hard to keep the debates straight.

    DRJ (605076)

  53. The discussion of jury bias still remains off-point, IMO.

    The legal system allows for a change of venue in cases where an impartial jury is unlikely. It is not the government’s responsibility to volunteer to move the trial, it is defense counsel’s responsibility to ask for it. Did they do so? If not, why are we even discussing this?

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  54. “Did they do so?”

    According to the docket sheet, they did not.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  55. LagunaDave,

    Using that logic, why are we discussing any of this? Nothing we think, say or do will make a difference.

    DRJ (605076)

  56. I know you know that, DRJ. I should have made clear that my comment was directed toward Mr. Curtis – who seems to believe that “illegal aliens who have been chased around by the border patrol” were part of the jury pool. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

    Comment by Tracy

    You do realize that illegal aliens who are chased around by border agents can become US citizens at a later date, don’t you?

    Is it your assertion that that no illegal aliens have ever illegally served on a jury in the El Paso area?

    I would have expected it to be a rare occurrence but I’m surprised that it has never happened considering all the phony documents that so many of them possess.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  57. Using that logic, why are we discussing any of this? Nothing we think, say or do will make a difference.

    I thought the point of this was to examine the transcripts and determine whether Compean and Ramos were railroaded (i.e. they did not receive a fair trial, or the evidence should have acquitted them).

    I feel odd explaining this to an attorney, but one essential mechanism for ensuring fairness is the adversarial nature of our legal system, right?

    Defense Counsel has many ways to protect their client. If the defense was denied a change of venue in the face of convincing evidence of jury bias, then I would say they did not receive a fair trial. But nobody has claimed that.

    If defense counsel should have known there was a likelihood of jury bias and did not request a change of venue, which seems unlikely to me, but possible I suppose, then they were not “railroaded” but incompetently represented, and I guess they deserve a new trial. I have not seen anybody claim that either, in fact I have seen the defense counsel praised more often than criticized by other attorneys here.

    In addition, having read most of the testimony that the jurors heard, and knowing that I, myself, am not Latino, or biased in favor of illegal immigrants, I still conclude that Ramos and Compean were guilty.

    There seems to be a pattern that people who are sympathetic to the agents try to argue points that nobody, not even the defendants themselves, disputed. And this is yet another example – if the defendants thought they couldn’t receive a fair trial by an impartial jury, they could have requested a change of venue. But they didn’t. That would indicate to me that the defendants (who were well acquainted with attitudes toward immigration in the area, and for whom the question was most important) did not think the jury was biased.

    But regardless, it is not the government’s fault if the defense should have requested a change of venue, but didn’t, and moreover, I have not seen anything but bald assertions and anecdotal claims in regard to jury bias. On the other hand, we have the *fact* that the defense did not request a change of venue, which is a strong indicator to the contrary.

    I suggested one way to obtain actual evidence would be to examine the coverage of the incident and trial in the Spanish-language media in El Paso, but that is impossible for me, and probably not easy even for a Spanish-speaker.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  58. J Curtis,

    I have to say that I have wondered how they screen out the illegals on the border. I’ve actually served on a jury (the lawyers took a big risk, I always cut attorneys), I don’t remember any diligence being used to ascertain if I was a citizen or not.

    They just use driver’s licenses for the lottery used to call potential jurors for service in my county. I remember when they used to use voter registration. We had smarter juries in those days.

    I’m not sure what they do in Federal Court. Anyone?

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  59. The legal system allows for a change of venue in cases where an impartial jury is unlikely. It is not the government’s responsibility to volunteer to move the trial, it is defense counsel’s responsibility to ask for it. Did they do so? If not, why are we even discussing this?

    Comment by LagunaDave

    You’re trying to move on to the question before the prerequisite question has been answered. But since I answered it, I’ll answer the next question.

    It would look really bad for Texas defense lawyers to ask for a change of venue for such a bias when they want this very same jury for most of their clients;.

    Perhaps these lawyers specialize in defending leos. Even then, it gets spun back the other way, that the lawyer is a racist.

    It works much better when you want to move the venue out of a white area for the benefit of a minority client. Whites aren’t conditioned to cry “racism” over such a slight.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  60. I’m not sure what they do in Federal Court. Anyone?

    Voter registration. I checked that out early on when I was trying to determine if Davila was eligible for jury duty with his voter card. It appears that he was.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  61. I’m not sure what they do in Federal Court. Anyone?

    From the US District Court for Western Texas website FAQ for jurors:

    Q: How was I selected?
    A: Juror names are selected at random from the voter registration lists. Before potential jurors are summoned for service, their names are randomly drawn from voters lists to receive a questionnaire to determine whether they meet the legal qualifications for jury service. Individuals who receive questionnaires are required to complete and return them to the clerk’s office, which then screens the completed questionnaires to determine eligibility for jury service.

    I found an example of the questionnaire here. (PDF format)

    The first question is “Are you a US citizen?” A social security number is also required.

    In any case, whether or not any of the actual jurors is an illegal immigrant is a question of fact that could presumably be answered by research.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  62. J Curtis,

    One thing that has occurred to me arises from the fact that, through out history, “apostates” have always been dealt with more harshly than “strangers”. In her closing argument, Kanof referred to the accusation that Compean called OAD Mexican mierde (sp?) and invoked that very idea. She said something to the effect that here was a man of Mexican descent calling one of his own a bad name.

    To me, that was an appeal to the jury to punish the turncoat in their midsts.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  63. Voter registration. I checked that out early on when I was trying to determine if Davila was eligible for jury duty with his voter card. It appears that he was.

    Davila did not have a US voter card.

    Voter cards are the primary citizenship document in Mexico and have a photo of the bearer.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  64. Jerri Lynn, Tracy and J Curtis,

    FWIW there is some evidence that a number of El Pasoans are illegal immigrants who received amnesty under the 1986 IRCA or American-born children of those immigrants.

    Here are the general rules that govern how federal court juries are selected. The US Court for the Western District of Texas is currently soliciting comments regarding a new Jury Plan that would select jurors from the general election voter registration lists of the counties within the district. The old Jury Plan that was apparently in effect in 2005 also drew potential jurors from the county voter registration list but did not specify it come from the “general election” voter registration list.

    DRJ (605076)

  65. 49

    “The vast majority of Americans have a bias against drug smugglers and a bias in favor of law enforcement. Would you disqualify all of those potential jurors with that bias?”

    I am not trying to disqualify anyone. You want to disqualify these jurors because you believe they were insufficiently biased in favor of law enforcement and against drug smugglers.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  66. LagunaDave, once again, you make a statement that you can not possibly have any knowledge of such as Davila did not have a U.S. voter registration card. How do you know that?
    How do you know that Ramos/Compean speak Spanish in their homes?
    Are you even aware that no proof of citizenship is required when registering to vote in the State of Texas? All that is required is that a person checks the box that “asks” if they are eligible to vote.
    Davila would not be the first illegal who had a U.S. voter registration card. Nor would he be the first to obtain a Social Security number. But of course, we all know that someone who sneaks into our nation illegally would never, ever lie.
    And isn’t it just wonderful that in Mexico your voter registration card has your picture on it, and your thumb print is required when you vote.

    retire05 (b7fd38)

  67. Thank you for the links, DRJ. I love links. I’ve been researching myself and came across those 2002 census figures on another site. By my calculations, 11.5% of El Paso’s population is made up of naturalized citizens.

    Having read the voir dire transcript – I thought it was a remarkably pro-law enforcement panel of jurors. I find most jury panels are at least somewhat biased toward LE, but the number of potential jurors in this panel who had friends, family members or collegues who were BP or members of some other branch of LE was exceptional, I thought.

    In other words – I don’t see that the jurors were a problem.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  68. Regarding the voter card: I’ve also previously posted that Aldrete probably said that he showed his “cedula” as an ID at the border. It is a common form of ID in all of Latin Americal. “Cedula” is the common term for Voter ID.

    Furthermore – as of yet we don’t have such a thing in the US. There are pushes to create one – but as of now it doesn’t exist. So to assume that this is some sort of scam by Aldrete to pass himself off as a US citizen is illogical.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  69. Davila did not have a US voter card.

    Voter cards are the primary citizenship document in Mexico and have a photo of the bearer.

    Comment by LagunaDave

    Yet to be determined but I suppose it’s possible.

    We know that the government has lied about his documentation. They said he had a laser visa that he let expire but no laser visas have expired yet. They are trying to hide his actual status.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  70. You want to disqualify these jurors because you believe they were insufficiently biased in favor of law enforcement and against drug smugglers.

    Comment by James B. Shearer

    Being biased in favor of law enforcement over criminals is called being “lawfully minded”. If a community isn’t biased in favor of law enforcement and against criminals, I sure as hell would disqualify their juries.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  71. Tracy,

    I understand your point about this jury panel being pro-law enforcement and perhaps even pro-Border Patrol. But I am reminded of the close ties Rene Sanchez had to his Mexican family and friends. I admit his testimony surprised me but it also made me realize that just because you have friends or family in West Texas law enforcement, it doesn’t mean you support everything they do.

    DRJ (605076)

  72. LagunaDave, once again, you make a statement that you can not possibly have any knowledge of such as Davila did not have a U.S. voter registration card. How do you know that?

    What I meant is that the voter card he mentioned in his testimony was not a US voter card. That seems too obvious to bother disputing, and the defense did not challenge it.

    8 Q. So you got some other type of parole document to come into
    9 the United States to get your medical care?
    10 A. No, only with the permit that Chris gave me, and with my
    11 voter’s card. That was the — that Chris gave me to come in,
    12 and with my voter registration card, that was all.

    The pass says that OAD is allowed into the US for medical treatment, and the (Mexican) voter card proves he is the person named on the pass. During the incident in question, there was no reason for OAD to produce a US voter registration card, since he had permission to cross the border as a Mexican national.

    Could someone remind me how it is material to the innocence or guilt of the defendants whether (despite the completely obvious nature of the only testimony that mentions it) OAD did, in fact, have a US voter registration card?

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  73. We know that the government has lied about his documentation. They said he had a laser visa that he let expire but no laser visas have expired yet. They are trying to hide his actual status.

    Oh please. Normally, Border Crossing Cards (“Laser Visas”) are valid for 10 years. That means if you are a typical person applying for one, it is valid for 10 years before you have to renew it. That means there is an expiration date on the thing.

    Is it so hard to suppose that if the government wants to, it can issue a Border Crossing Card with any expiration date they choose?

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  74. LagunaDave,

    Just as it is with every witness, almost everything about Aldrete-Davila is relevant because it bears on his credibility as a witness. Some information was withheld from the jury because it was hearsay, repetitive, inherently prejudicial (e.g., other drug activities), prohibited by Constitutional law (e.g., the fact that he plead the Fifth), etc. Those exclusions do not cause the underlying information to be irrelevant, just inadmissible.

    DRJ (605076)

  75. Oh please. Normally, Border Crossing Cards

    (”Laser Visas”) are valid for 10 years. That means if you are a typical person applying for one, it is valid for 10 years before you have to renew it. That means there is an expiration date on the thing.

    Comment by LagunaDave

    When did they issue the first laser cards, LagunaDave?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  76. When did they issue the first laser cards, LagunaDave?

    1998, I believe. The final deadline after which the older ones were no longer accepted was September 30, 2001, according to the Department of State.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  77. When did they issue the first laser cards, LagunaDave?

    1998, I believe. The final deadline after which the older ones were no longer accepted was September 30, 2001, according to the Department of State.

    Comment by LagunaDave

    By “older ones” you mean the visas that weren’t laser visas.

    It’s not 2008 yet so how could it be that Davila let his laser visa expired?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  78. Just as it is with every witness, almost everything about Aldrete-Davila is relevant because it bears on his credibility as a witness.

    The only part of his testimony which seems truly relevant to the prosecution is the fact that he did not menace the BP agents with a gun. His testimony does not go to the cover-up, and the fact that he was shot in the back by Ramos is unchallenged.

    Even apart from OAD’s testimony, the rest of the defense’s account of things does not make sense to me, while the prosecution’s does:

    1) No report of the shooting by Ramos to superior moments afterward.

    2) No mention of the shooting by Compean to Yrigoyen moments afterward.

    3) Active attempts to conceal the shooting and destroy evidence thereof.

    4) No mention of OAD’s alleged gun by C&R until they knew an investigation was underway.

    5) Compean’s testimony about where he was shooting from and how many shots he fired contradicted by multiple other witnesses.

    6) According to Compean’s testimony, OAD, if armed, passed up two opportunities to shoot him while the agent was on the ground.

    7) Instead, with a clear path to escape, and (supposedly) nobody shooting at him at the time, he pauses to whip out a gun and start taking potshots – twice. Both Compean and Ramos testified that OAD was running away, then turned to reveal a weapon.

    Indeed, viewed in this light, the need for those who want Ramos and Compean exonerated no matter what to put forward bizarre conspiracy theories is obvious – it isn’t enough for one witness to have lied. Virtually every witness must have been lying, and virtually every piece of testimony must have been falsified. Moreover everyone involved in the case (counsel, defendants, witnesses, judge) must have known this. But somehow the defense could not produce any evidence of this vast conspiracy by the government to traduce its own agents, much less convince the jury of it.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  79. What surprised you about R. Sanchez’s testimony, D?

    Tracy (b404ed)

  80. By “older ones” you mean the visas that weren’t laser visas.

    By older ones, I mean the Border Crossing cards in use prior to 1998.

    It’s not 2008 yet so how could it be that Davila let his laser visa expired?

    I’ll try to explain again. The government determines what expiration date appears on documents it issues. If they can issue a Border Crossing Card, they can issue one valid for any period of time they choose.

    10 years is the maximum period that a BCC can be valid before it must be renewed. When someone applies for a BCC by filling out an application, that is how long it is valid for. The government could issue a BCC valid for one day though, if it wanted to.

    Is it so hard to understand that since OAD was being allowed entry for specific medical treatment, for a limited period of time, the government would not need to issue him a BCC valid for the next 10 years?

    If they had issued him a full 10-year BCC, when he only needed to enter for medical treatment over a much shorter period of time, I imagine you would be pointing to that as evidence of the conspiracy too…

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  81. LagunaDave,

    The laser visa is valid for a maximum of 10 years. That means you can’t buy a 20 year laser visa.

    He was a truck driver going back and forth between Mexico and the US. Legally, they claim. It’s not a one day vistiting pass.

    The mind-boggling thing about this whole discussion is that the Davila backers need to insist that one more crime was committed to make him innocent of all crimes. That is that his visa expired and he was here illegally.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  82. We know that the government has lied about his documentation. They said he had a laser visa that he let expire but no laser visas have expired yet. They are trying to hide his actual status.

    Any visa that he had or didn’t have is a matter of public record, is it not? I still don’t understand why we are arguing about any of this.

    OAD never said anything on the stand about laser visas. He says he had a BCC at some point in the past:

    9 Q. How do you know Fabens so well?
    10 A. When I used to have my border crossing card, and — because
    11 I used to have it before they took it away — I used to go over
    12 and go buy things, and I crossed by that bridge there. I mean,
    13 I know Alameda Street and some of the streets. I don’t know
    14 all houses or everything else all that well.

    Later, being questioned about his entry for medical treatment he says:

    4 Q. Okay. And then did you get a border crossing card?
    5 A. No, I’ve had my local crossing card since I was a child.
    6 Q. Okay.
    7 A. And I lost it.
    8 Q. So you got some other type of parole document to come into
    9 the United States to get your medical care?
    10 A. No, only with the permit that Chris gave me, and with my
    11 voter’s card. That was the — that Chris gave me to come in,
    12 and with my voter registration card, that was all.

    During a bench conference, Kanof refers to the expired visa as a “laser visa”. Whether she meant a new BCC or old BCC, it seems totally irrelevant to me.

    If OAD had a BCC since he was a child, it was no longer valid after September 30, 2001 and had to be replaced by the new version. If he didn’t apply for another one, then it expired on that date. It is not impossible that the replacement had the same expiration date as the older one, either. When you lose your driver’s licence and go get a replacement, the date of expiration is the same as the old one, because replacing the licence isn’t the same as renewing. It is entirely possible the same is true here.

    In any case, there is a record of whatever border crossing documents he has had, somewhere, and the defense, if they thought it was important, could find them. Since it is relevant to nothing in the case, I’m not surprised they didn’t. But they could have.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  83. Tracy,

    I was surprised at the extent to which a Border Patrol agent such as Rene Sanchez could have ties to Mexico and Mexicans:

    1. In general, I’m not surprised that Sanchez has family in Mexico, or that his family knows Mexican nationals who violate American law by crossing illegally or bringing in drug loads (whether once or several times), or that Sanchez’s mother-in-law (MIL) has a friend whose child violates drug or other laws. But put it all together and it surprises me that Sanchez has all these things.

    2. I was surprised Sanchez’s MIL believed she could ask Sanchez for assistance from his employer and that Sanchez would be willing to come forward with this information. Sanchez’s motivation does not seem to be correcting an injustice as much as pleasing his MIL and/or helping a family friend obtain benefits. I’m not saying Sanchez was wrong – in theory he was right to do what he did – but I think it’s against human nature to jeopardize one’s employment for a MIL’s best friend and/or for a childhood friendship. I know Hispanics that put extended family interests ahead of financial considerations so perhaps it shouldn’t surprise me, but it’s not something most people would do for the friends of in-laws.

    3. If true, I was surprised that Sanchez suggested Aldrete-Davila retain a lawyer to file suit against the US. Maybe Sanchez didn’t do this but there is a credible suggestion that he did. I think that is a questionable action and conflict of interest.

    4. Sanchez testified (Vol VI p 157) that he visits his wife’s family in Tres Sacales, Mexico. After looking at the maps of this area and considering the testimony (including that Tres Sacales is described as being across from Fabens), I think this may be a typographical and/or translation error and that Sanchez’s in-laws live in Tres Jacales, Mexico. I think Aldrete-Davila was shot at Tres Jacales Crossing, so once again there seems to be a link between Aldrete-Davila and Sanchez. I find this surprising.

    5. When combined with the foregoing, I have a problem with the implications or inferences of the Blanchette memo. It may be a red herring but, then again, maybe not.

    DRJ (605076)

  84. If OAD had a BCC since he was a child, it was no longer valid after September 30, 2001 and had to be replaced by the new version. If he didn’t apply for another one, then it expired on that date.

    Comment by LagunaDave

    vol 7 128-24

    MS. KANOF: He was here legally. He used to have a visa, a laser visa. He let it expire.

    It wasn’t the old one that the government is claiming expired, it’s the new laser visa that they claim expired.

    Have you abandoned your short term laser card argument?

    The mind-boggling thing about this whole discussion is that the Davila backers need to insist that one more crime was committed to make him innocent of all crimes. That is that his visa expired and he was here illegally.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  85. 4. Sanchez testified (Vol VI p 157) that he visits his wife’s family in Tres Sacales, Mexico. After looking at the maps of this area and considering the testimony (including that Tres Sacales is described as being across from Fabens), I think this may be a typographical and/or translation error and that Sanchez’s in-laws live in Tres Jacales, Mexico. I think Aldrete-Davila was shot at Tres Jacales Crossing, so once again there seems to be a link between Aldrete-Davila and Sanchez. I find this surprising.

    I don’t understand why this is mysterious.

    OAD lives near his mother.

    R.Sanchez’s MIL is a friend of OAD’s mother.

    The two families (OAD’s and R.Sanchez’s wife’s) live near the place where OAD was trying to smuggle, and where the incident occurred.

    When R.Sanchez visits his MIL, he must, perforce, visit the area near the incident.

    In other words, it is identical to the “mystery”, if you want to call it that, of R.Sanchez’s MIL being a neighbor OAD’s mother.

    Unless you want to posit the all-encompassing conspiracy theory, what does the relationship between R.Sanchez’s family and OAD’s family have to do with the innocence or guilt of Ramos and Compean?

    Yes, if the two families hadn’t known each other, there would have been no investigation and no trial.

    That is likely the calculation that Ramos made when he decided to cover-up, rather than report, the shooting.

    Also, you suggest that R.Sanchez did something that he could have expected would jeopardize his job, but I don’t see that. He seems to have CYA’d every step of the way, between talking to his supervisor and writing memos.

    Who is it that “credibly suggested” R.Sanchez told OAD to get a lawyer and sue?

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  86. retire05,
    Have you ever been to Venezuela? Have you ever been outside of North America? It seems you are missing my point… your reply states “Hugh Chavez is much more generous to those who come into Venezuela illegally.” It has NOTHING to do with “illegal aliens”. My wife is a legal permanent resident of the US… yet she is still profiled and questioned as if she were a criminal at customs. I understand this country needs tight border patrol, but it’s unfortunate that honest and legal people are getting harassed and denied in the process.

    http://films.thelot.com/films/19561

    Borderline Wrong (d27825)

  87. Borderline Wrong,

    One of my problems with border control is that legal immigrants are treated unfairly as you have described. In fact, I believe that in some instances the illegals are treated better than the legals like your wife.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (9f83e6)

  88. MS. KANOF: He was here legally. He used to have a visa, a laser visa. He let it expire.

    It wasn’t the old one that the government is claiming expired, it’s the new laser visa that they claim expired.

    Kanof may have been using “Laser Visa” as a shorthand for “Border Crossing Card”, which is the terminology today and has been for almost 10 years. As far as the law is concerned, they are both the same document – a Border Crossing Card.

    I’ll ask again: Why is Kanof’s description of OAD’s BCC as a Laser Visa in a bench conference relevant, given that “Laser Visa” is a synonym for “Border Crossing Card” today, and has been for almost 10 years?

    How do we get from there to “Compean and Ramos are innocent of all charges, and victims of a vast conspiracy spanning the entire federal government”?

    Have you abandoned your short term laser card argument?

    We are talking about two different things. The Laser Visa/Border Crossing Card referred to by Kanof and OAD in his testimony was one had sometime before 2/17/05. The short-term entry permits were received after the shooting for medical treatment.

    There are so many red herrings, it is sometimes hard to keep them straight.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  89. LagunaDave,

    Aldrete-Davila testified that Rene Sanchez talked to him about asking for immunity, getting medical treatment in the US, and filing a lawsuit against the Border Patrol. Sanchez also helped Aldrete-Davila find a lawyer in the US. (Vol VII pp 214-215.)

    As for my earlier comment, I think you are confusing surprise with mystery. I don’t find these facts mysterious but I do find them surprising.

    DRJ (605076)

  90. Borderline Wrong: You’re not around much – but it might help you to know that those of us you are are trying to define [i.e, narrow] the discussion – not broaden it.

    I’m sure your documentary is nice work. This just might not be the place for it.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  91. Ugh. I hate typos. Correction below.

    orderline Wrong: You’re not around much – but it might help you to know that those of us who are are trying to define [i.e, narrow] the discussion – not broaden it.

    I’m sure your documentary is nice work. This just might not be the place for it.

    Tracy (b404ed)

  92. DRJ,

    How old is Davila? I can’t find it. I can find ages of everyone, including the guy where he dropped the october load, but I’m not finding Davila’s age. I’m sure it’s just eluded me somehow.

    J Curtis (d21251)

  93. J Curtis,

    Short answer: 24 years old. [UPDATED: 24 years old in 2005.]

    Long answer: Dr. Todd Miller of William Beaumont Army Medical Center testified that Aldrete-Davila’s medical history listed him as 24 years old when he had surgery to remove the bullet. (Vol VIII p 191.) Doctors don’t independently verify information like age when taking a medical history. Instead, they record what the patient (or the patient’s representative) tells them at registration. The theory is that patients won’t lie to doctors because it might result in the doctor making a mistake in treating them.

    At the risk of incurring the wrath of commenters who will accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, I was curious about this testimony when I first read it in the transcript. The prosecutor’s questions to Miller were phrased in a strange manner, so I’m going to reprint them here so you can see for yourself:

    “Q. With regard to the anatomy of an individual male — this individual male was about 24 years old at the time, correct?
    A. Correct.
    Q. Okay. If the medical records said that, that’s what you would go on?
    A. Yes.”

    I think the prosecutor was acknowledging that the doctor doesn’t really know how old Aldrete-Davila was. Perhaps when the government was doing the pretrial prep, the doctor balked at stating he knew Aldrete-Davila was 24, both because of the foregoing and because Miller was the genitourinary specialist and not the primary treating physician. My recollection is that Miller saw Aldrete-Davila in the operating room after he was under general anesthesia so he couldn’t ask him his age. Thus, Kanof was careful to phrase her questions so that Miller could testify as to age based on the records and not personal knowledge.

    Anyway, I think it’s likely Aldrete-Davila was 24 years old when this happened but we don’t know that for sure.

    DRJ (605076)

  94. How old is Davila? I can’t find it. I can find ages of everyone, including the guy where he dropped the october load, but I’m not finding Davila’s age. I’m sure it’s just eluded me somehow.

    I didn’t find a direct statement anywhere.

    R. Sanchez is 33. He was born in the US, but lived in Mexico and moved back to the US when he was “15 or 16”. He said he was already in the US when OAD was 7 years old. That suggests OAD is about 25.

    LagunaDave (cb0e49)

  95. OAD’s dob is on the unredacted parole document (border pass) published by WND. He was born in September 1980, making him 26 years now, and 24 in February of ’05.

    Harry Beasley (686801)

  96. DRJ,

    I agree, Karof’s questions were odd. It’s odd that neither the prosecution at trial nor the government in all of its documents directly refers to Davila’s age when it’s usually the kind of thing that is mentioned repeatedly.

    Then they get this doctor on the stand and age all of a sudden becomes such an important issue that they use the doctor to establish it. Weird.

    It makes me think that the guy has some aliases with different ages on them and the government is not so sure which one of the identities is the true one, if any of them.

    If he does have aliases, are these aliases linked to other crimes or information that would be relevant to this case?

    J Curtis (d21251)

  97. […] Border Patrol Trial Transcripts – Jose Luis Mendoza (Volume X) More in this ongoing series. h/t DRJ – Patterico […]

    Headline Summaries: Border Security at Traction Control (9f9139)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1141 secs.