Ignacio Ramos’ 2nd defense witness was Rene Sanchez. Sanchez testified earlier as the first prosecution witness.
This might be a good time to review the official report from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, on the Ramos and Compean case. The portion that pertains to Rene Sanchez starts at page 10 of the linked PDF.
From Transcript XIII:
Ramos Witness #2 – Rene Sanchez:
Ramos direct examination (by Mary Stillinger):
108-109 – R. Sanchez denied that he discussed any of the following subjects with Aldrete-Davila:
– OAD’s claim for damages against the Border patrol.
– How to get immunity from prosecution.
– Help finding a lawyer to make his claim against the Border Patrol.
– Advice on how to tell his story.
109-110 – R. Sanchez does not recall meeting Aldrete-Davila in Mexico sometime after February 17, 2005.
110-111 – Aldrete-Davila has not given R. Sanchez information about activities in the Fabens area that might help him in his work.
111 – R. Sanchez’s first knowledge about this case was from his mother-in-law. He advised his supervisor and his supervisor ordered him to investigate. R. Sanchez looked in BPETS, the BP computer, that shows the “number of apprehensions by station, sector, area, any seizures, any agents assigned to a particular area.” The BPETS was not limited to Arizona but also covered the Fabens area.
111-112 – A significant incident report (SIR) should be in BPETS. [The Court sustained a government objection to a question regarding how BPETS’ searches are done after defense offered to move on.]
112 – In an effort to find out what happened in Fabens, R. Sanchez also contacted Agent Nolan Blanchette who was on detail to the Fabens station. R. Sanchez contacted Blanchette within a week or two of the shooting.
112-113 – Blanchette told R. Sanchez about the dope load on February 17, but R. Sanchez already knew about it from BPETS. R. Sanchez saw it on BPETS before Aldrete-Davila told him [he was smuggling drugs].
113-115 – R. Sanchez knew about the dope load before March 3. Defense counsel asked why he did not include this information in his March 3 report. [Bench conference in which the prosecutor requested that the Court instruct the jury that during R. Sanchez’s first testimony, he had been instructed under a motion in limine that he could not discuss the fact that he had seen a drug report. Defense counsel responded that she was not trying to impeach R. Sanchez regarding his earlier testimony regarding drugs – defense counsel understands that was subject to a motion in limine. Stillinger’s point was that R. Sanchez “wrote a memo on March 3rd and said this guy was shot in the back when he was trying to return after an illegal entry, and he knew that wasn't true.” The prosecutor disputed that R. Sanchez meant to say that and stated she would clarify that on redirect. The Court withheld ruling until the need for an instruction became apparent from the testimony.]
115-116 – R. Sanchez did not tell anyone who the smuggler was when he found out about the seizure of marijuana in the computer.
116 – R. Sanchez thought it was important to find out whether the shooting had been reported. He agreed it might be a good lawsuit if the shooting wasn’t reported, but he denied that he was investigating the viability of a lawsuit.
116-117 – R. Sanchez looked at the computer because he knew Aldrete-Davila was involved in an incident but he didn’t realize at first that the shooting was connected to the drug seizure. R. Sanchez never connected the drug seizure and Aldrete-Davila’s shooting until Aldrete-Davila confessed to R. Sanchez that he had been smuggling drugs.
117 – Aside from telling his supervisor about Aldrete-Davila, knowing it would be passed on to OIG, R. Sanchez didn’t do anything to help Aldrete-Davila in this case.
Government cross-examination (by Debra Kanof):
117-118 – When he first testified, R. Sanchez was subject to a motion in limine that prevented him from telling that he learned about the drug seizure when he first looked on BPETS.
118-119 – R. Sanchez first heard about a shooting from his mother-in-law on February 28, 2005. He told his supervisor, Mr. Karhoff, who told R. Sanchez to get more specific information. R. Sanchez did not know then that Aldrete-Davila had marijuana. [The Court sustained 2 defense objections to leading questions.]
119-120 – R. Sanchez looked in BPETS to see what incidents happened on February 17, 2005. He found a drug seizure on that day reported in an I-44, a report of an apprehension or seizure. The I-44 did not have text, just the fact that it existed. R. Sanchez did not find any evidence there had been a shooting on February 17, 2005.
120-121 – R. Sanchez did not take that information back to his supervisor. Instead he contacted Blanchette and asked “if he had heard of a shooting in the Fabens area.” [The Court sustained a defense objection to a leading question.] At that time, R. Sanchez did not relate the shooting incident to the I-44 drug seizure.
121 – BPETS did not have the name of the drug transporter.
121-122 – Before R. Sanchez wrote the March 3 memo, Blanchette told R. Sanchez that he hadn’t heard about a shooting in the Fabens area. R. Sanchez’s memo was dated March 3 and that’s the date he wrote it. R. Sanchez did not know that Aldrete-Davila had marijuana with him when he wrote that memo and gave it to his supervisor. R. Sanchez found out about a week later that Aldrete-Davila had drugs that day.
Ramos redirect examination (by Mary Stillinger):
122-123 – R. Sanchez’s memo reflects he thought the shooting occurred in the San Elizario area so he looked for that area in BPETS. R. Sanchez said he found the Fabens drug seizure because San Elizario is in the Fabens area. R. Sanchez had full access to information about drug seizures in every Border Patrol station in the country.
123 – R. Sanchez was/is not aware that San Elizario is in the Ysleta station.
123-124 – R. Sanchez didn’t tell his supervisor that he found out about a drug seizure in BPETS. The supervisor told R. Sanchez to investigate the subject and get more information, so R. Sanchez took that as permission to look in BPETS. He assumed it was all right even though he realizes he is not supposed to investigate things for friends or family members.
Government cross-examination (by Debra Kanof):
124 – R. Sanchez was not looking in BPETS for a friend or family member.
125 – [Witness excused.]